Untitled - Christ's Faithful People

127667

NIHIL OBSTAT.

Sti. Ludovici, die 18. Oct. 1910.

F. G. HOXAVECK,

Censor Librorum.

IMPRIMATUR,

Sti. L/udovici, die 18. Oct. 1910.

J. A. Cosnsroivi/sr, V. G,

Copyright, 1910, by Joseph Oummersbach,

A2sri> BOOK: MFG. Oo.t

ST. 3LOTJIS, HO., -Or. S. A.

THE TRANSLATOR'S FOREWORD

The imperious need of a History of Dogmas, written in

English from a Catholic and scientific standpoint, is the

motive that has prompted the translator to render this work

into English.

He offers his thanks to all those, among his associates or

among his pupils, who have contributed, in some way or

other, by encouragement or active cooperation, to lessen the

difficulties of his task.

The translation of quotations from the Greek or Latin

Fathers is substantially that of the Ante Nicene Fathers.

H. L. B.

THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE

This volume is the first of a History of Dogmas in Ancient

Theology, which at first was intended to be complete in one

volume; its importance, however, is so great, and the material

for its composition so abundant, as to have obliged me to

divide it into two parts. The eagerness with which this first

volume has been called for, has decided me not to delay the

printing of it, until the second is ready. Besides, it treats of

a well defined epoch and, strictly speaking, constitutes byitself an independent whole.

The method adopted in its composition is the method

which, later on, I call synthetic, viz., I have generally followed

the chronological order, setting forth at the same time all the

doctrine of each author or document, and following up, so to

speak, the history of all the dogmas. Any other method was

scarcely practical, because of the character of the epoch to be

described: an epoch when great controversies had not yetarisen and strictly so called definitions on the part of the

Church had not yet been made. I am fully aware that such

a method may put Theologians to some inconvenience; for,

while they are anxious to have, grouped together, all the

texts referring to a certain subject, in the present work, theyare obliged, in order to find those texts, to go through the

whole book. But, although such an inconvenience can

scarcely be avoided, I have tried to remove it, as much as I

could, by placing, at the end of the volume, an analytical

table bymeans of which it will be easy to make out, in a short

time, the series of testimonies and teachings of the first' three

centuries, on this or that point of doctrine.

iv

THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE v

There are some, perhaps, who would prefer to see the texts

quoted exclusively from Migne's Greek and Latin Patrology,with the indication of the page and column, where they are to

be found. Such a constraint I did not think it wise to imposeon myself. For, in the first place, however useful and valu-

able Migne's editions are, they are not always faultless nor

even sufficiently complete. Secondly, there are instances in

which the works I referred to are divided into rather short

sections, and then, the indication of the pages was thought

superfluous. Still, such an indication is sometimes really use-

ful or even necessary, and when that is so, it will be given.

Notes, placed at the beginning of chapters or of paragraphs,

give lists of the principal works referring to the author or

subject in question; which lists it will be easy to complete

by consulting U. Chevalier's Repertoire des Sources Histor-

iques du Moyen Age, Bio-bibliographie, a second edition of

which is now being published, and 0. Bardenhewer's Geschichte

der altkirchlichen Litteratur. Generally I have omitted works

somewhat old and mere review articles, as well as articles of

those dictionaries which of course are always to be consulted,

such as the Dictionnaire de ThSologie Catholique, the Kirchen-

lexicon, the Realencyklopadie far protestantische Theologie und

Kirche, the Dictionary of Christian Biography, etc. As to

histories of dogma, strictly so called, the most importantand the best known are mentioned at 3 of the Introduction.

That the reading of these books, especially of some of them,has been of great profit to me, I fully acknowledge; still, it

has always been for me only a preliminary to the careful

study of the texts themselves. The reader of this book will

find therein analyses and appreciations: whatever judgment,he may pass on them, whether they seem to him exact or er-

roneous, he may feel assured that they rest on a personal and

direct perusal of the documents themselves. To them, wemust ultimately go back; and the chief purpose of this book

vi THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE

is precisely to make the study of them more easy. And so,

these pages should not be considered as a work complete and

self-sufficing, but as an instrument for further work, and as

a guide in the study of the doctrinal monuments left us byChristian antiquity.

LYONS, December, 1904.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIONPAGE

i. Notion of the History of Dogmas; Its Object and Limits .... i

2. Sources of the History of Dogmas. Various Methods which maybe followed. Its Divisions 7

3. Principal Works on the History of Dogmas n

CHAPTER I

ON THE RELIGIOUS, PHILOSOPHICAL AND MORAL DOCTRINES IN THE MIDST

OP WHICH CHRISTIAN DOGMA APPEARED AND BEGAN ITS DEVELOPMENT

i. Greco-Roman Religion and Philosophy at the time of Christ anduntil the Middle of the Second Century 18

2. Religious and Moral Doctrines of the Jews at the Time of the Com-ing of Jesus. Palestinian Judaism 29

3. Alexandrian Judaism and that of the Dispersion. Philo ..... 43

CHAPTER II

THE EARLY STATE OF CHRISTIAN DOGMA. PREACHING OP JEStJS CHRIST

AND THE APOSTLES

i. The Personal Teaching of Jesus Christ, according to the Synoptists 592. The Teaching of Jesus, according to St. John 72

3. The Teaching of St. Paul 76

4. The Teaching of the Apostles besides St. Paul and St. John ... 91

5. The Teaching of St. John 97

CHAPTER III

THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

i. Preliminary Remarks 1042. The First Epistle of St. Clement 107

3. The Shepherd of Hennas in4. The Second Epistle of St. Clement 119

5. The Epistles of St. Ignatius 121

6. The Epistle and"the "Maxtyrium" of St. Polycarp. Papias .... 132

vii

viii CONTENTSPAGE

7. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles 135

8. The Epistle of Barnabas 139

9. The Symbols of Faith 142

CHAPTER IV

THE FIRST DEFORMATIONS OF CHRISTIAN DOGMA. THE HERESIES OF THE

SECOND CENTURY

i. Judseo-Christianity in, the Time of St. Paul 1502. The Beginnings of Judaizing Gnosticism. The Nicolaitans. Cerin-

thus 153

3. Judaeo-Christianity in the Second Century 159

4. Gnosticism 1 70

5. Marcionitism 1836. Tatian and the Encratites igo

7. Montanism. The Alogi 1928. Millenarianism 199

CHAPTER V

THE DOCTRINAL STRUGGLE AGAINST HEATHENISM; BEGINNINGS OF SPECU-

LATIVE THEOLOGY. THE APOLOGISTS OF THE SECOND CENTURY

i. General Remarks on the Apologists 2032. The Apologetics ofjjthe Apologists, and Their Concept of Revelation 206

3. Christian Doctrine in the Apologists 213

CHAPTER VI

THE DOCTRINAL STRUGGLE AGAINST HERESY. ST. IREN^US AND MELITO . 228

CHAPTER VII

THE PRINCIPAL EARLY THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS IN THE EAST

i. Clement of Alexandria 2432. Origen 256

CHAPTER VIII

THE CHRISTOLOGICAL AND TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES IN THE WEST ATTHE END OF THE SECOND AND THE BEGINNING OF THE THIRDCENTURY

i. Adoptionism 2872. Patripassian Monarchianism 2903. Opposition to Monarchianism 293

CONTENTS ix

CHAPTER IX

THE POUNDERS OP LATIN THEOLOGY. ST. ETPPOLYTUS, TERTTJXLIAN,NOVATIAN

PAGE

i. St. Hippolytus. The "Philosophoumena" 2982. Tertullian 304

3. Novatian 326

CHAPTER X

THE QUESTION OP PENANCE IN THE WEST DUUING THE THIRD CENTURY.

NOVATIANISM

i. The Question of Penance in Rome, under Callistus 3372. The Question of Penance in Africa. Novatianism 346

CHAPTER XI

ST. CYPRIAN AND THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY

Y St. Cyprian's Theology ., 355

2. The Baptismal Controversy 366

CHAPTER XII

THEOLOGY IN THE EAST FROM ORIGEN UNTIL THE COUNCIL OP NIOSEA

i. The Successors and Disciples of Origen. St. Dionysius of Alexandria 3772. Theognostus and Pierius 3863. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Hieracas 3884, Writers independent of or opposed to Origen. St. Peter of Alex-

andria ..... 3915. St. Methodius of Olympus 3926. The Dialogue De recta in Deum fide 397

CHAPTER XIII

THE EASTERN HERESIES OP THE END OP THE THIRD CENTURY

i. The Adoptionism of Paul of Samosata 4002. Manicheism 404

x CONTENTS

CHAPTER XIV

THE WESTERN THEOLOGIANS AT THE END OP THE THIRD AND AT THEBEGINNING OF THE FOURTH CENTURY

PAGE

i. Arnobius and Lactantius 4122. Commodian 420

CHAPTER XV

THE DOCTRINE AND THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH ON THE EVE OF ARIANISM

Analytical Table 424

INDEX 433

THE

ANTENICENE THEOLOGYINTRODUCTION

i. Notion of the History of Dogmas, its Object and Limits.

THE primary meaning of the word dogma, Soy/to,, is that of

a command, a decree, a doctrine which forces itself upon us.

It is used by St. Luke to designate the edict of Augustus rela-

tive to the census of the Empire (Luke, 21), and is used in

a similar sense in Actej i64; if-, Ephes., 215

; Coloss., 2 14.

Besides, Cicero writes : Sapientiae vero quid futurum est? Quae

neque de seipsa dubitare debet, neque de suis decretis quae pkiloso-

pki vacant W^ara, quorum nullum sine scelere prodi poterit:*

in this passage are meant philosophical doctrines which the

mind must accept. It is with this last signification that the

ecclesiastical acceptation of the word is connected. Aboutthe year 335, Marcellus of Ancyra includes in dogma the rules

of Christian morality;2 but a few years later, Gregory of

Nyssa applies the expression to the object of Christian faith

only: "Christ divides the Christian discipline into two [parts]:

the part referring to morals, and that referring to the exactness

of dogmas."8

This last use has prevailed. A dogma is, then, a truth

revealed, and defined as such by the Church, a truth

which the faith of the Christian is obliged to accept. We1Academ,, Book II, 9.

2ETTSEB-, Contra MarcelL, I, 4; P> G. } XXIV, 756, C.

*Epist. 24; P. G., XLVI, 1089, A; Accuse? (6 X/Jc<rrds) els Stio rty rav

,e& re r6 yOucbv ptyos ical els r\v r&v SoyfA&ru

2 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

call dogma or dogmas, the collection of all the truths thus re-

vealed and defined.

Strictly speaking, Christian Dogma is not the same as

Christian Doctrine. The former supposes an explicit inter-

vention on the part of the Church deciding a determinate

point of doctrine; the latter covers a somewhat more exten-

sive field; it includes not only the defined dogmas, but also

the teachings that are ordinarily and currently propounded,with the full approval of the magisterium.

Dogmas are intended to be but the translation, into techni-

cal formulas, into clear and precise language, of the data of

Revelation, of the teachings of Scripture and of early Christian

Tradition. Between the teachings of Jesus or of St. Paul on

one side, and those of the Council of Nicaea or of Trent, on the

other, there is indeed no similarity in words, but there is

equivalence, substantial identity. The latter do but repro-duce the former. Such is the affirmation of the Catholic

Church. Still, the question comes in: How was the transi-

tion made from the Gospel, St. Paul or St. Clement to the

statements of Nicaea or to the Profession of Faith of Pius IV?

What was the course followed by Christian thought in that

evolution which thus brought it from the primitive elements

of its doctrine to the development of its theology? Whatwere its stages in that progress? What impulses, what sus-

pensions, what hesitations did it undergo? What circum-

stances threatened to bring about its deviation from that

patfr, and, as a matter of fact, in certain parts of the Christian

community, what deviations did occur? By what men andhow was this progress accomplished, and what were the ruling

ideas, the dominant principles which determined its course?

These questions the History of Dogmas must answer. Its

object is, therefore, to set before our eyes the intimate work-

ing of Christian thought on the primitive data of Revelation;a working by means of which it grasps them more and more

INTRODUCTION 3

fully, illustrates them and makes them fruitful, develops them;and finally marshals them into a harmonious and scholarly

system without however so Catholics hold altering their

substance, or modifying their doctrinal ground-work.And thus it is easy to see that the history of dogmas is but

a part of Ecclesiastical History. For the latter must record

the life of the Church, her internal and external life, the life

of her belielf and therefore of her faith, the vicissitudes that

life has gone through, as well as the life and vicissitudes of her

institutions and worship, the progress of her missionary work

and the events with which her relations with the powers of

this world have been marked. To believe and teach the

truth is fcxr that Church, the first of all blessings, as well as

the first of aH functions. Any Church History ever so little

worthy of that name cannot pass by the history of her teach-

ing and of her faith, the history of her dogmas.

It may now be useful to distinguish the history of Dogmasfrom the theological sciences that are somewhat related to it.

We hare already mentioned the difference between Chris-

tian Dogma and Christian Doctrine, the latter being more ex-

tensive than, the former. Hence, a history of Dogmas is not

exactly & history of Christian Doctrine. As a matter of fact,

however, and in practice, they must be almost blended to-

gether, since a history of Christian Doctrine necessarily

includes tlie history of Dogmas, and since this last, in its turn,

cannot present a full historical sketch of the teachings of the

Church;, if we exclude from it those of her teachings which

have not yet been the object of solemn decisions.

But -we must carefully mark the distinction between the

history o1 Theology and the history of Dogmas; the former

having fox its purpose to expose, not merely the progress of

the doctrines defined or generally received in the Church, but

also the rise and growth of systems and views proper to par-


ticular Theologians; moreover, on the lives, works and

method of those Theologians, it admits of details that are out

of place in a history of Dogmas.

Again, the history of Dogmas should not be confounded

with Positive Theology nor with Patrology and Patristics.

Positive Theology is that science which establishes the truth

of the Christian dogmas, by means of the precise testimonies

of Scripture and Tradition, though without following their

development through the course of ages: in it, more atten-

tion is given to demonstration than to history. As to Pa-

trology and Patristics, both refer exclusively to those writers

we call the Fathers of the Church. The former studies their

lives and draws up the catalogue, sifts the authenticity and

mentions the editions of their works, which, in a word, it

considers chiefly from the outside; Patristics examines and

exposes their doctrine, and reveals the treasures contained in

them. Both, indeed, are for the history of Dogmas, subsidiarysciences and necessary auxiliaries; but the latter most as-

suredly goes beyond the field to which they are confined. For,besides the Fathers, the history of Dogmas consults other

monuments of the Christian belief: symbols, liturgies, de-

crees of Councils, painted or sculptured memorials, etc. Far

beyond the Patristic Age, it follows up, even to our owntime, the evolution of Christian thought. Hence it constitutes

by itself a distinct science with an object well defined and a

field clearly determined.

Moreover, we may remark that the history of Dogmas canbe treated with a twofold purpose, and that, in this respect,we might perhaps make a distinction between such a historyand Historical Theology. In its treatment of facts and texts,the former sets aside any apologetical preoccupation, and

ascertains, and relates, and exposes. He who takes it up caneven deny any value, either to dogmatic statements or to the

logical processes by means of which they are deduced. Such

INTRODUCTION 5

was Bossuet's attitude when he described the evolution of

Protestant doctrines. Such is that of a Christian scholar whostudies the history of the Brahmanic dogmas. Such is also

the disposition with which many Protestant or Rationalistic

writers treat the history of Dogmas; but we easily grant, that,

without going as far as that indifference or hostility, an

author, even a Christian author may not aim, in his researches,

at proving directly the legitimate character of actual Chris-

tian teachings. On the contrary, that is the aim of Historical

Theology, where history is not the end, but only a means; the

end is a theological one; the purpose in view is to show, from

the history of ideas and facts, that the actual faith is normallyconnected with the Apostolic faith, and that the Christians

of to-day are truly the direct and lawful heirs of the disciples

of Jesus.

After these distinctions, it seems easy to get an adequateidea of what the History of Dogmas really is. It is more diffi-

cult, though, to say to what precise time it must go back, andhow far it includes or excludes the history of Revelation itself.

For, as we have already seen, dogmas claim to have been re-

vealed, and to be but Revelation reduced to formulas. If

such a claim is justified, their primary origin is the revealingact or series of revealing acts, and their early shape, their

substance are the teachings of the Old Testament, and of

Jesus and the Apostles, in other words, the Theology of the

Old and of the New Testament. Hence a complete historyof Dogmas will include a history of Revelation and a sketch

of that Theology. And any one who desires to examine the

legitimacy of such a claim is brought back to the study of

the early, origin of Dogmas, and of the influence exercised on

their formation, by Philosophy, surrounding religions, the

authentic or apocryphal writings of the Old Testament,

Jewish traditions, popular imagination, and, of course, the

historical fact of the preaching of Jesus and the Prophets,


etc. But, as is easy to realize, such a field is indeed rather ex-

tensive and belongs properly to a certain number of special

sciences, apologetical and exegetical. It seems best for us to

avoid this field, and not to busy ourselves in a history of

Dogmas with the early sources of their contents. The work of

Christian thought on those primitive data and the gradual

transformation thus brought about make up the chief object

of such a history; consequently, in order to point out the

terminus a quo of the processus to be described, we will content

ourselves with a mere sketch of the teachings of Jesus and the

Apostles, as related in the New Testament. On the other

hand, in order that we may be able to keep before our minds

the subjective circumstances in which Christian thought

began and continued its work, and the external influences to

which, outside Revelation, it has been exposed or may have

been subject, the history of Dogmas must both present to us

an idea of the religious, philosophical and moral surroundingsin which this work of Christian thought has been accom-

plished, and point out to us the foreign doctrines which mayhave acted on Christian thought and started it in a deter-

mined direction. Such a process will enable us to connect

the history of Dogmas with the history of their origin, without

at once denying or solving the many and delicate problems to

which such questions give rise. At the same time, one may,for more extensive information, consult the works in which

such problems are more deeply studied.1

1 As I am not writing a book of Theology, I abstain from exposing here

the theory of the development of Dogmas, such as it is conceived by Catholics

or by Protestants. On this subject, cf. VINCENT OF LERINS, Commonitorium,

I, 23, P. L.t L, 667-669; NEWMAN, Essay on the Development of Christian Doc**

trine, last Edition, and its criticism by J. B. MOZLEY, Theory of Development,A Criticism of Dr. Newman's Essay, 1879; DE 1A BARBE, La vie du Dogmecatholique, Paris, 1898. Nor can I omit to mention, notwithstanding the fact

of their being condemned, the two books of A. LOISY, L'Evangtie et VEglise,

second Edit., Bellevue, 1903 translated into English, New York, 1904 and

1909 ; Aidour d'un petit Livre, Paris, 1903, A few remarks may suffice for our

INTRODUCTION 7

a. Sources of the History of Dogmas. Various Methods which

may be followed. Its Divisions.

There is scarcely any branch of Christian literature that

can, nay should not be made use of for a history of Dogmas.To begin with, we must mention the very sources of dogma:first, Scripture, and the oral teachings of Jesus and the Apos-tles recorded in subsequent documents; then, the Creeds,Confessions of Faith, definitions of Councils and Popes, which

have determined its bearing and accurately stated its mean-

aim. The history of Dogmas implies that those dogmas have passed throughcertain vicissitudes and have been subjected to certain developments or trans-

formations; for those things alone have a history, which live and change.

That, as a matter of fact, there have been such vicissitudes, cannot be doubted,and we have but to open our eyes to witness them. The important point is to

determine their character and results, to point out their limits, causes and laws,in short to define how far the substance of dogmas is affected by that evolution.

The question may be treated either by the theoretical method, a priori, whichstarts with what the Church teaches in regard to the substantial immutabilityof dogma, or a posteriori, by the historical method, which gathers up the results

revealed by a careful study of the facts. This last method is of course the onlyone an historian can follow.

Protestant and Rationalistic authors affirm it has led them to the conclu-

sion that the early data of Revelation have been not only scientifically exposedand developed, but also substantially altered and modified by subsequent

dogma. Such, for instance, is Harnack's declaration in his "Outlines of the

History of Dogma'7

Introduction, p. 7. Quite different indeed were, as is well

known, the conclusions reached by Newman, still an Anglican, after the samehistorical researches; conclusions he has recorded in his famous Essay, above

mentioned, most of which have been a'dopted by Catholic scholars. I will add

only that, though the theory of the development of dogmas is at present studied

a great deal, still it is far from being complete. Generally scholars have been too

easily satisfied with vague formulas and mere comparisons, which are not pre-

cise enough (the child who becomes a man, the kernel that becomes a tree, etc.).

For the question to be answered in a technical and adequate manner is this:

When is an idea or a doctrine, a mere development of another idea or doctrine,

and when is it to be considered a substantial alteration or transformation of it?

The comparison of the oak which grows from the acorn shows us how greatly

two doctrines may apparently differ, one of which, however, proceeds from the

other. This is too much lost sight of by some authors, whose concept of dog-matic progress is evidently too narrow,

2


ing; and finally, the works of the Fathers and ancient ecclesi-

astical writers, and for a period nearer to us, the works of

Theologians. Canonical and disciplinary decrees, liturgical

prayers and chants, inscriptions and figured monuments mayoften supply precious indications as to the intimate beliefs of

the Church at a certain epoch; apocryphal books and the

works of heretics may provide the counterfeit and counter-

part. Ecclesiastical history may light up, as it were, the sur-

roundings in which those beliefs have grown, and by the

very facts it relates, often bring forward witnesses of themmore striking than the texts themselves. Finally and our

enumeration is far indeed from being exhaustive he whodesires to explain satisfactorily the influences under which

Christian thought has developed, and to realize the bearingof dogmatic formulas, one element of which is philosophical

terminology, must know by all means the philosophical and

religious ideas prevalent in the various ages of the Church.

***

Two methods which may be followed in the History of

Dogma, present themselves to us, the synthetic and the

analytic. In other words, we may study the general history

of Dogmas, by following the order of time, and setting forth

the idea which each epoch or each principal author formed

of the whole system or of the separate points .of Christian

doctrine; or we may take up a particular dogma or a particu-

lar group of dogmas referring to the same object for

instance, the Trinitarian dogma, and follow its rise and

development during a definite period, or even from the begin-

ning of Christianity to our own days. The latter or analytic

method enables us to get a deeper insight into the history of

each dogma considered by itself"and see its evolution better;

however, it has the drawback of presenting only detached

monographs, and of exhibiting, of the systems of great Theo-

INTRODUCTION 9

logians such as Origen or Augustine only the disiecta

membra, which, of course, cannot make us read into their in-

timate and more general views. Moreover, if we consult

history, we see that, though certain dogmas seem to have

engrossed for a long time the attention of the Church, still

the others were not altogether passed by. The first method,

viz., the synthetic method, has, then, the advantage of beingmore in harmony with objective and concrete history; again,

it enables us to point out better the ideas and beliefs preva-lent at certain epochs, to show the mutual connection or sub-

ordination of several doctrines, and to set forth the generalviews of the writers who come under consideration. Owingto these advantages, it has been adopted by the more recent

authors, and we will adopt it ourselves. We may observe,

however, that between the two methods, intermediate com-

binations are possible, nay, often, necessary; in all this, there

is nothing absolute.

***

The history of Dogmas begins with the preaching of Jesusand reaches to our own time, for even now Christian Doc-

trine continues to be determined and explained. However,in those nineteen centuries, it is easy to distinguish, as in the

history of the Church in general, three periods quite distinct.

The first embraces about the first eight centuries; it ends, in

the East, with the Image Controversy and St. John Damas-cene (| about 750); in the West, with the condemnation of

Spanish Adoptionism, the last echo of Christological con-

troversies, and with the name of Alcuin (f 804). It was then

that the fundamental dogmas were formed, discussed and

defined: those of the Trinity and the Incarnation, in the East;

those of sin, grace and the Church, in the West. The sec-

ond period begins with Charlemagne or even some years be-

fore, and includes all the Middle Ages, extending even to the

to THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

Reformation and the Council of Trent. During this period

the Greek Church scarcely appears; the Latin Church seems

to engross all activity. An extensive work of systematization

picks up the doctrinal elements of Tradition, and, in a power-

ful synthesis, blends them with philosophical data, chiefly

with those of the Aristotelian system. This was the age of

the Summae, of the theology of the Sacraments, Indulgences

and accessory devotions, and also of the theology of Ecclesi-

astical hierarchy and power. With Protestantism and the

Council of Trent, a third period opens. Whilst the former

claims to go back to primitive teachings, by making Scripture

the only doctrinal source, and faith, the only principle of jus-

tification, the latter sanctions most of the work of the Middle

Ages, and engages with Naturalism, already broken out in

the Renaissance, in a battle which is to continue in the follow-

ing centuries. It is no longer this or that dogma which is at

stake; now the very existence of the Church as a teaching

authority, even the necessity of a definite dogmatic belief are

challenged (Liberal Protestantism); the existence of the

Supernatural and of Revelation (Rationalism) ;the belief in

God and the value of human reason, arc called in question

(Atheism, Subjectivism). Although during this period, dogmahas certainly developed, still it has been chiefly defended.

Under its various forms, the science of Apologetics has been

in the foreground.

The present volume will take up only the beginning of the

history of Dogmas as far as the Council of Nioea (325); an-

other volume will carry the study up to Charlemagne.1

Owing to the abundance of material, the author has been unable to fulfil .

his promise. The second volume published in 1909 carries the history of

Dogmas from the age of St Athanasius to that of St. Augustine only. Athird volume will take the reader to the times of Charlemagne. T.

INTRODUCTION n

3. Principal Works on the History of Dogmas.

In its present form the History of Dogmas is only one cen-

tury old. Of course, the ancient authors who wrote about

heresies, St. Irenaeus, the author of the "Philosophoumena,"the Pseudo-Tertullian, St. Epiphanius, Philastrius, The-

odoret, etc., and the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius andhis continuators, have left us materials for the history of Doc-

trine in the first centuries; but they never thought of writing

such a history. During the Middle Ages, the very idea of

progress in Dogma seems to have disappeared. The least

suspicion of the possibility of such a development was stifled,

so to speak, by the prevalent ignorance of the most ancient

Fathers, and by the blending of their works with apocryphal

writings which had been altered and made to harmonize with

the decisions of subsequent Councils. The Reformation, on

one side, and the wonderful patristic work of edition, revision

and sifting, accomplished by the great scholars of the i6th,

iyth and i8th centuries, on the other, were needed to remind

theologians of the fact pointed out in the 5th century byVincent of Lerins, and to direct their attention to that fact.

The fundamental argument of Protestantism against Catho-

lic dogma charged the latter with being comparatively recent

and with being unknown to Scripture and to the Fathers:

Ab initio nonfuit sic. A careful study of the doctrine of An-

tiquity then became necessary. In France, it was taken upwith great success, by the Jesuit Petau (De Theologicis Dog-

matibus, 1643-1650) and, a few years later, by the Oratorian

Thomassin (Theologica Dogmata, 1680-1689). Petau still

continues to be a master whom it will always be profitable to

consult. At the same time, a Scotchman, John Forbes of

Corse, published at Amsterdam a work, Institutions his-

torico-theologicae with the purpose of showing the harmonyof the Reformed doctrine with primitive Orthodoxy; then


came the work of George Bull (Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, 1685-

1688) in which he defends, against the Socinians, the Trini-

tarian belief and sharply criticizes the exegesis of Petau.

However great may have been the place held in those

works by the history of doctrines, still, strictly speaking, theywere not histories of dogma. It is in Germany that the first

essays with that title appeared, and it is chiefly Protestant

Germany which has multiplied them. We may group around

six names all the numerous works which have been publishedon this topic.

The first is that of W. Miinscher of Marburg (f 1814) -1

His history had been preceded by S. G. Lange's work 2 which

had remained unfinished, and was followed by a series of text-

books which contributed nothing to the advance of the science

itself. Notwithstanding his profound learning, Miinscher

-himself was too much of a Rationalist to understand Chris-

tianity and its development.After Mtinscher, we must mention Neander,

3 and the

authors connected with Schleiermacher, among whom are

Baumgarten-Crusius (fi843)4 and F - K. Meier (fi84i).

6

The tendency is already better and more conservative. Meier's

book betokens, in its author, the right view of the method to

be followed; the materials are well chosen and carefully

arranged.

But with HegePs rise and under the influence of his philoso-

phy, a new conception of the evolution of dogmas was broughtforward. It is represented by F. Christian Baur (f1860) and

1 Handbitch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 1797-1809; Lehrbuch der

christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 1811.2

Ausftihrliche Geschichte der Dogmen, 1796.*AUgemeine GeschicJde des Christcndums, 1825, .; DogmengescUchte, this

last work published by JACOBI in 1857; both have been translated into English.* Lehrbuch der christtichen Dogmengeschichte, 1831, and ff.; Compendium

der chrisitichen Dogmengeschichte, 1840 and 1846.6 Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 1840.

INTRODUCTION 13

his school. Besides various essays devoted to the dogmas of

the Trinity, Incarnation and Redemption, Baur wrote a

text-book of the history of Dogmas and delivered lectures onthe same subject.

1Whilst, for Baumgarten-Crusius and

Meier, the changes undergone by Dogma are the result of par-ticular causes, Baur sees in these changes the effect of that

general law which carries along all doctrines through the

vicissitudes of the thesis, antithesis and synthesis. At one

time, his system met with considerable success; now it is uni-

.versally given up.

A reaction set in, which aimed at justifying, by means of

history, Orthodox Lutheranism and the fundamental dog-mas of Christianity. Its most conspicuous writer was Thoma-sius (|i875)-

2 He accepts in principle tKe authority of the

Church and of Scripture, and thus establishes the legitimate

character of the definitions of the early Councils. Neverthe-

less, and this shows his inconsistency, he proceeds in his

work, still maintaining that, during the Middle Ages, the

hierarchy had started doctrine in the wrong way, and that it

required the Reformation to set it aright. To this sameorthodox Lutheranism belong Kliefoth,

3Schmid,

4 and Kahnis

(fi888).5

Baur's influence was replaced by that of Eitschl (fiSSg).

The latter wrote on the History of Dogmas only some essays

on method, and a few other detached works; but he power-

fully contributed to set aside the old method commonly used

in text-books, of dividing the history of Dogmas into general

(synthetic method) and particular (analytic method) ;more-

1 Lekrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 1847; Vorlesungen fiber die

christlichen Dogmengeschichte, edited in 1865-1868.2 Die christliche Dogmengeschichte, 1874-1876, re-edited by BONWETSCH and

SEEBERG, 1886 and 1889.8Ewieitung in die DogmengescMchte, 1839.

4 Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 1859.6 Der Eirchenglaube historisch genetisch-dwgestelU, 1864*

i4 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

over, he drew attention to the part played by Greek Philoso-

phy in the formation of Christian Dogma. With him we mayjoin the name of F. Nitzsch.1

With the members of the same school we may also, in a

certain measure, associate A. Harnack.2 The ruling idea in

the latter's writings is that, "in its conception and develop-

ment, Dogma is the work of the Greek mind on the field of

the Gospel," in other words, that it is the product of Greek

Philosophy working on the Gospel data. For the defence and

proof of his thesis, the author has used to great advantage his

extensive knowledge of ancient Christian Literature. For it,

however, he employs a paradoxical tendency which is too

manifest; many things implied in his conclusions are far

from deserving acceptance. Several text-books worthy of

mention, have since appeared; such as those of F, Loofs z and

R. Seeberg.4

Catholic Germany has not produced as many general his-

tories of Dogmas, but has applied herself rather to detached

studies. However, we must mention the well known text-

book of Klee 5 and' that of Zobl, not so well known (1865).The most complete work is that of J. Schwane; 6

yet, we mayfind, in the historical sketches scattered by Kuhn in his Dog-matics,

7 remarks perhaps still deeper. Bach published, in

1 Grundriss der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 1870.2 Lehrbuch der DogmengescUchte, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1886-1890; 3rd Ed.,

1893-1897. Grundriss der Dogmengeschickte, 1889-1891; 2nd Ed., 1893. Bothworks have been translated into English. A new German edition of the Lehr-buch is forthcoming.

8Leitfaden zum Stadium der Dogmen%eschichte, Halle, 1889; 3fd Edit, 1893.

* Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Erlangen, 1875, &; Grundriss der Dog-mengeschickte, 1900.

8 Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 1837, ff.; translated into French by MABIRE^1852.

6Dogmengeschichte, 1862, ff.; 2nd Edit., 1892, ff.j French translation by

A. DEGERT, 1903-1904.7 2nd Edit,, 1859.

INTRODUCTION 15

1873, a good history of Dogmas in the Middle Ages,1 and K.

Werner, extensive studies on St. Thomas and Scholasticism.2

So far France has produced no complete history of Dog-mas.3 In his controversies with Jurieu and Richard Simon,

4

Bossuet had indeed to examine the difficulties to be met with

in the teaching of some Fathers; but he did so, in a spirit

which seems to exclude the very idea of dogmatic progress.

Some excellent suggestions are contained in the Histoire des

Sacrements by Dom Chardon (1745); yet, we must come to

Archbishop Ginoulhiac to find a work which directly and reso-

lutely takes up the subject of which we are now speaking.His book, Histoire du dogme catholique pendant les trois pre-

miers siecles de VEglise, was left unfinished, since it treats

only of God and of the Trinity; the analysis is pushed to

the extreme and the exegesis is sometimes rather timid; but

the author's deep and conscientious scholarship is manifest; the

exposition, clear and judicious; the tone, excellent. TheEtudes sur les Peres des trois premiers siecles by Bishop Frep-

pel are still read with interest and profit, though the exposi-

tion is loose and the criticism antiquated. On the other hand

we cannot but value very highly the information supplied

by Mgr. Duchesne in his various studies of Ecclesiastical

History, particularly in his Origines Chretiennes 5 and his

pamphlet Les temoins anteniciens du dogme de la Trinite (1883).

Father de R6gnon has published a work on the Holy Trinity,

Etitdes de th&ologie positive (1892-1896), which although it

* Die DogmengescTtichte des Tzafholiscken Mittelatters, 1873-1875.2 Thomas von Aquino, 1859; Die Scholastik des sp&teren Mittelalters, 1881

and foil.

8 I am speaking only of Catholics. Protestants have published some works

in that line. The best known is that of FR. BONIFAS, Histoire des dogmes de

VEglise Chrttienne, 1889.4 Amrtissements aux protestants; Defense de la Tradition.

5 Cf. also his Histoire ancienne de I'Eglise, 1906-1910 (First vol. translated

into English, 1909).


remains unfinished, is one of the solid works of Historical

Theology, published in recent years. To this list, we mayadd several writings of Mgr. Batiffol l and of J. Tunnel,

2 as

well as many articles in the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catho-

lique undertaken by A. Vacant.

In Italy, the lectures of J. Semeria, a Barnabite, on Christian

Origins deserve mention.3

England applied herself to the history of Dogmas more

slowly than Germany. But, in 1845, a book appeared that

was destined to mark an epoch; it was the Essay on the De-

velopment of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman. Thework is not a history of Dogmas, but rather its introduction

or preface, full of deep views and original presentations. Theauthor became a Catholic, before he had finished it. English-

speaking Protestants have since published comparativelyfew histories of Dogma; they have chiefly translated those

published in Germany. However, we may mention that of

Shedd (fi894),4 written from the Calvinistic standpoint, the

moderate and well informed summary of G. P. Fisher

( 1*1909) ,

5 and more recently the judicious Introduction of

J. F. Bethune-Baker.6

1 Etudes d'Histoire et de Th&logie positive, ist and and series, Pans, 1904-5and foil.

2 Histoire de la Theologie Positive, Paris, 1904-1906.* More particularly Dogma, gerarchia e culto nella chiesa primitiva, Roma,

1902; French translation by F. RICHERMOZ, Paris, 1906.4History of Christian Doctrine, 8th Ed., New York, 1884.

5History of Christian Doctrine, New York, 1896.

6 An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine to the Time ofthe Council of Chakedon, London, 1903.

CHAPTER I

ON THE RELIGIOUS, PHILOSOPHICAL AND MORAL DOCTRINES,IN THE MIDST OF WHICH CHRISTIAN DOGMA APPEARED ANDBEGAN ITS DEVELOPMENT

THE preaching of Jesus and of the Apostles the immedi-ate source of Christian Dogma did not address itself to a

world recently come into existence, nor indeed did it, even in

the beginning, fall upon minds devoid of ideas. In Palestine,

where it was first received, and in the Greco-Roman world,where it spread afterwards, doctrines and systems were pre-

valent, and institutions and customs had been existing, somefor a longer, others for a shorter time. With these the new

teaching very soon found itself in contact. Even those who

adopted it and made it widely known, had been trained, in

their childhood, according to those customs and doctrines,

and brought up in the midst of those institutions. Hence it

is natural to suppose that they introduced something thereof,

into their notions and formulas of Christianity. A history of

Dogma must then begin with a sketch of the ideas and sys-

tems which were prevalent both among the Jews and in the

Greco-Roman world from the time of Christ's coming until

the middle of the 2nd century. Such a sketch is necessary

that we may realize the influence which" those elements exer-

cised or may have exercised on the formation and early ex-

pression of Christian Doctrine.


i. Greco-Roman Religion and Philosophy at the time of Christ and

until the Middle of the Second Century.1

At the time of Christ's coining into the world, a religious

revival was going on in the Greco-Roman world: which,

though making stronger the attachment to official rites, wasat the same time raising in the souls of men aspirations towards

forms of worship more personal and, as they thought, moreefficacious than were the ceremonies of old. This revival was,

partly, the work of Augustus (30 B. .-14 A. B.), anxious to

shelter his power behind the respect which the traditions of

the past always inspire. It was likewise, and in fact, chiefly

the result of the new circumstances in which society was at

that time; the barriers separating various peoples were dis-

appearing, nationalities more and more intermingled, orders

and classes among citizens were passing away; with the growthof absolutism, liberty was on the decrease, wealth was becom-

ing uncertain and life itself was conscious of insecurity. Mostof the commons were poor and starving; whilst the affluent

had so much abused their riches for the sake of pleasure, that,

filially disgusted, they were nearly craving for an outside

power to come and draw them far away from the gratifications

they were unable to give up. On the other hand, Philosophy,which had been unpopular at Rome until Cicero's time

(f43 B. c.), had won the right of citizenship and was setting

1 Cf. G. BOISSEER, La religion romaine d'Auguste aux Antonins, 4th Ed.,

Paris, 1892; C. MARTHA, Les moralistcs sous Vempire remain, $th Ed., Paris,

1886; RraLE, La religion d Rome sow les S&u&res, Paris, 1886; RAMSAY, The

Church in the Roman Empire before 170, London, 1893; HATCH, The Influence

of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 7th Ed., London, 1898;

MARQUARDT, Romische Staaisverwaltung, vol. 3, Das Sacralwcsen, Lcipsic,

1878; ZELIJER, Die Philosophic der Griechen, part 3, 3rd Ed., Leipsic, 1881,

at

least partly translated into English; LUTHARDT, Die antike Ethik, Lcipsic,

1887; A. HARNACK, Die Mission und Ausbretiung des Christentums in den

ersten drei Jahrwtderten, Leipsic, 1902 translated into English under the

title: The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 2 volumes, and Ed., 1908.

APPEARANCE OF CHRISTIAN DOGMA 19

forth more severe teachings. The religions of the East, gradu-

ally advancing towards the West, were rousing everywherean intense religious feeling, were opening before pious souls

new horizons and presenting practices and emotions which,

though disturbing, corresponded to needs deeply felt, the

more deeply that they were less well defined.

A first result of this state of things was a kind of religious

syncretism which tended to blend into one all national reli-

gions, to identify the pantheons of the conquered nations with

that of the victors, even to represent all the various Gods as

so many personified attributes of one god, or so many mani-

festations of the universal plastic power which permeated and

ruled the world. This last conception was accepted by the

learned, and though the common people remained faithful to

polytheism and to the worship of separate divinities, still theywere not altogether opposed to it. Besides, the Ancients were

very far from having of the Gods the idea of transcendence

which we have of the only God, nor did they use the word Qefc

in the restricted and exclusive meaning which we now attach

to it.1 The divine essence was considered as one, and at the

same time as divisible and communicable; of it were madethe Gods of mythology, happy and immortal, as well as the

souls of heroes and of the men renowned for virtue; there

was in these a genius, which was to survive them and, after

their death, be definitely ranged among the Gods. Hence weshould not wonder at seeing the apotheosis bestowed first on

great ancestors, then on the most influential men, and finally,

in a spirit of flattery, on all emperors. Nay, it was thought,

in every family, that the departed members had reascended

to the Gods from whom they had come. To minds imbued

1 CLEMENT OP ALEX., Stromat., VI, 14, P. G., DC, 337; ORIGEN, Prolegom.in Psalm., in PITRA, Analecta, II, 437; CICERO, De Legibus, II, u: "Omnium

quidem animos inrmortales esse, sed fortiorum bononunque divinos." Cf,

HARNACK, History of Dogma, I, p. 119, note 2.


with such beliefs, the idea of the apparition of the Gods uponearth did not seem preposterous. Far from it: although, at

the beginning, such an idea had been opposed by the free-

thinkers of the time. Gradually it had been progressing and

at the epoch of the Antonines, had forced itself upon most of

its former adversaries. Consequently the immortality of the

soul was a doctrine then generally received, except by the

Epicureans. After leaving the body, the soul was judged.

If it had practised justice, it was associated with the Gods;if it had been wicked, it was punished with the wicked; so

that either Elysium or Tartarus awaited it. However, theyat times imagined a third abode for some guilty ones whose

faults were to be ascribed more to misfortune than to per-

versity. But, setting aside the old data of mythology, nothingcertain and precise was known as to the nature of future

happiness or torments. By bringing in the idea of metemp-

sychosis, the doctrine of Pythagoras had somewhat obscured

and unsettled the ancient traditions as to the everlasting

duration of Elysian felicity. And of that felicity, Virgil, as a

faithful echo of the beliefs current in his time, has left us two

descriptions which, though coming one after the other, do not

agree. In one of them, the happiness of heroes and just menis complete and eternal: such was the common conception.In the other, there appears the thought of expiation : all souls,

even those of the just, must expiate, for a thousand years, in

a way more or less painful, the sins they may have committed

during their life upon earth; after this, they drink oblivion

at the River Lethe, and are sent back into the world, there to

begin another existence; such was the Pythagorean concept,which placed itself by the side of the earlier concept, withouthowever destroying it.

These were the principal doctrinal elements that made upclassical Paganism, under Augustus and for a few years after.

Of course, they were scanty; hence though they could suffice


as a foundation for an official worship, they came short of

quenching that thirst for certitude and for mystical emotions,

which more and more tormented certain souls. Instead of

turning to these ancient forms, the religious spirit, which the

Emperor had done his utmost to arouse, addressed itself to

worships, old, indeed, in themselves, but new for that society,

coming, as they did, from foreign lands. Not that Oriental

religions proposed a theoretical teaching more complete and

certain than others; but they pretended to purify man from

his sins and, by means of mysterious initiations and practices

up to that time unknown to the Roman world, to bring him

into a close communion with the Divinity. Now, notwith-

standing its frightful corruption, Greco-Roman society seems

to have felt deeply the need of expiation and yearned for inter-

course with Heaven. Hence the age saw many, chiefly amongthe women, won over by the gravity and austere life, as well

as by the preachings, of the priests of Isis or of the Syrian

goddess, witnessed them fast most rigorously, bathe in icy

water, abstain from foods considered unclean, inflict on them-

selves penances and macerations, and make ready for the

festivals of the Gods, by observing severe continence. Then,on more solemn occasions, a ceremony of great importancewas gone through: the taurololium, the expiatory sacrifice

by excellence, in which the blood of the victim was to purifyfrom their faults, and "regenerate for eternity" those on

whom it flowed.1 These practices were accompanied or fol-

lowed by initiations, in which, as they thought, the future life

was revealed, and the god showed to those being initiated the

mysterious side of his nature. Of all these worships, that of

Mithra was, after the rule of the Aatonines, to become the

most popular. It made its first appearance in Rome towards

1 Taurobolio criololioque in aet&rnum renattts (Corpus inscript. latin., VI, 510).

The first mention of the taurobolmm is found in an inscription of Naples, of the

year 133 A. D,


the end of the Republic. Mithra is a mediator and a redeemer,

having a hierarchy, sacrifice, baptism and a sacred supper, in

which the initiated brother eats a piece of bread and drinks

from a chalice of water.1 In this the Fathers will see a dia-

bolical counterfeit of Christianity.3

Still, what the Pagansoul seeks after in all these ceremonies is the very same thing

the Christian soul shall find in the Gospel and its institutions,

viz., forgiveness of sins committed, purification, not legal and

ritual, but true and interior, salvation, eternal life.

There were, then, endeavors to make closer the bond be-

tween religion and individual morality. In consequence, the

former ceased to be a mere State institution of which the priests

were the functionaries, and public decency, the standard; on

the contrary, it began to be considered the embodiment of

personal feelings, whence all were to derive the courage needed

to reform their conduct and check their passions. Yet, it

should not be forgotten that, in this work of renovation,

religious sentiment, especially among the learned, was power-

fully helped by Philosophy.

True, in its metaphysical teaching, the latter had for manyyears completely lost its prestige. Each one of the great

schools, that of Pythagoras, of Plato, of Aristotle, of Epi-

curus, of Zeno, still numbered some representatives; but

they were much more characterized by the dominant than

by the exclusive element of their system. More and more

frequent reconciliations and concessions tended to do awaywith disagreements and to melt into one the various theories

about God and the world. With Arcesilaus (f 240 B. c.), the

Academy had already combined with Pyrrhonism; it per-severed in the theory of the probable with Carneades (f 129B. c.), with Philo of Larissa (f about 80 B. c.), who wasCicero's teacher, with Antiochus of Ascalon (| 68 B. c), and

1JUSTIN, I ApoL, 6, Otto, I, 182.

aJUSTIN, ibid.; Dialog, with Trypho, 70, Otto, II, 250, foil.

with Cicero himself (f43 B.C.)- Still it was chiefly with

Stoicism that it allied itself. Now the Metaphysics of the

Porch was very simple. There are no pure spirits : all thingsare bodies, some more, others less refined. The mind, which

is a body of a rather delicate nature, is identical with God

who, just like a subtle fire, an eternal ether, an immanentand hidden force diffused into the world, permeates andmoves and rules it, and is its very soul. From God came

matter, which, after clothing Him as with a garment, must

again be absorbed into Him. From Him also are derived all

the forces of nature, even the very spirit of man.1 He is, in

the world, the principle of all activity or energy, not in the

sense that He imparts it and creates it from the outside; it

is He Himself or, in the strict sense of the word, it emanates

from Him. He is, then, by way of preeminence, the Xetyo?

<77T/?^an/co?, the seminal reason of the universe: a universe,

which He governs by immutable laws, by laws proper to

Himself; for He is identical with Fate and the fatal order of

the world, though at the same time He is reasonable, perfect,

exempt from all evil, and the author of all good things.2

At first sight, this materialistic Pantheism and this concep-tion of an immanent God seems far remote, indeed, from

Plato's transcendent idea of God and from the contrast he

had established between God and nature, chiefly between

God and matter. Still, in Plato's doctrine, there was an ele-

ment of reconciliation. He believed in a soul of the world,

from which had sprung the souls of the stars and these, being

divided, had formed, in their turn, the souls of men and of

brutes.3 Into that soul of the world, the divine ^01)9, the

Mind was inserted; which though inferior to the idea of Good,

Swdfytets cis &ir6 TWOS TTTJJTJS. Cf, ZELLER, Stoics,

reans and Sceptics, p. 146, n. 3.2 Cf. ZELLER, p. 150, n. i.

8FOTJILL^E, La Phiiosophie de Platon, II, 203, 204.

3


which was God Himself, surpassed the soul in excellence. 1

Now we see that even Plato's nephew, Speusippus, identified

the divine Intelligence with the soul of the world, whilst

some Stoics, like Boethus (about 150 B. c.), considered God,

not as immanent, but as external, to the world He governs.2

On the other hand, we meet with some Peripatetics of the

first century B.C., such as the author of the liepl Koa-pov, who

distinguish between God and His power (SiW/u9), and repre-

sent the latter as permeating the world, just as, according to

the Stoics, God permeates and animates it.3 We find a simi-

lar syncretic tendency on the part of the Pythagoreans. Thetruth is that Philosophy withdrew more and more from pure

speculation, in order to concentrate all its attention on Ethics;

and in this direction its contact with the Western and Romanmind gave it a new impetus.

This turn in Philosophy from the abstract to the concrete

caused all systems, even those which, like Stoicism and Epi-

cureanism, seemed the most opposed, to meet on practical

ground. Of them Stoicism was certainly the most influential.

From it many drew their inspirations, even some whose

metaphysical ideas should have driven them far in another

direction. Thus, for instance, Lucretius (98-54 B. a) sets

forth lessons of virtue altogether unexpected from him.

Cicero also, whose sympathies were for Platonism, prefersthe ethical system of Zeno and of the Porch. The same code

of morals we find, tempered, and therefore more pure and

complete, in Seneca (3 B. 0-65 A.D.), most probably the

best philosopher Rome ever produced; hard and austere, in

Epictetus (40?-! 1 7? A. D.), meditative and retired within it-

self, in Marcus Aurelius (121-180).

However, when it comes to speak of our duties to God,this code of morals uses a language quite different from that

1Hid,., pp. 195, 112, 164.

2 Cf. ZELLER, p. 159.8 C!. ZEIXEK, p. 148.

APPEARANCE OF CHRISTIAN DOGMA 25-

of speculative Stoicism. In the latter, God is the divine en-

ergy animating the world, nay, He is the world itself, He is

Nature, Destiny, Fortune. But when it is question of pre-

cepts of morality, the same God becomes a living being,

a person, and is represented as a judge, a providence, a

father: Prope est a te Deus, tecum est, intus est. . . . Sacer

intra nos spiritus sedet malorum bonorumque nostrorum ob-

senator et custos . . . ipse nos fractal.1 Deus ad homines

venitj immo quod est propiuSj in homines venit; nulla sine Deomens bona est.

2 More optimorum parentum qui maledictis

suorum infantium adrident, non cessant di benefcia congerere

. . . unam potentiam sortiti, prodesse? Hence the first of

all virtues is to give oneself up to God, to accept His will

without a murmur, for He is a friend, a father who loves us

with an intense love: whom we also ought to love and thankfor His benefits. Moreover, as He listens to our prayers andis sensible of our miseries, we ought to pray to Him. Suchare the words and advice of Seneca, who, however, when

speculation gets the upper hand, does not scruple to place his

ideal wise man on the same level with God, even to declare

him superior, in a certain measure, to the latter,4 and em-

phatically to affirm that the wise man has nothing to ask or

fear from God.

Yet, at the same time, Seneca recommends, as to oneself,

a discreet austerity which, whilst avoiding, in the exterior,

anything savoring of singularity, keeps up the soul's vigorand energy. Wealth is to be used with moderation; volun-

tary abstinences, to be practised, so that the body may be

held in subjection; honors and dignities, to be despised as

things that do not make us better; excessive emotions of pas-

sion, to be repressed. Still, there are emotions which cannot

be checked and must be allowed, such as sorrow and tears,

1Epist. XLI, 2. 2

EpisL LXXIII, 16.

8 De beneficiis, VH, 31, 4.4Epist. LIH, u,.


at the sight of a great loss. Yet, let it be remembered that the

body is the prison of the soul, which it oppresses and con-

strains, and therefore that the latter must always oppose the

appetites of the former, and even be strong enough to free

itself in case of necessity.

But what is, perhaps, the most striking in this new code

of morals is the idea, that it proclaims, of universal brother-

hood among men, the idea of a love, we may say of a charity

which must embrace all. In this we witness the crumblingdown of barriers, whose fall will gradually modify the social

relations of men. Seneca not only asks that we should be

liberal and beneficent, feed the hungry, help the wanderers

and the poor, redeem slaves, and decently bury the corpses

of criminals; he even wishes that no distinction be made in

the bestowing of favors, that even slaves be considered our

neighbors, and our very enemies, not excluded from our bene-

fits: Hominibus prodesse natura me iubet, et serui liberine sunt

hi, ingenui et libertini . . . quid refert? Ubicumque homo est,

ibi beneficii locus est.1 Si deos . . . imitaris, da ct ingratis

b&neficiaj nam et sceleratis sol oritur?

These are noble teachings, indeed, and it is no wonder that,

since the 4th century, many Christians thought that Seneca

had received them from St. Paul.3However, if we go to the

bottom of his philosophy and consider all its affirmations, wefind that, after all, it does not agree so well with the com-mands and chiefly with the spirit of the Gospel. Let it be re-

marked, too, that, in opposition to what is generally thought,these same lessons were not presented to the aristocracy alone;side by side with the philosophers who, like Cicero, Seneca,or Cornutus wrote and spoke for the Patricians, there were

1 De vita beata, 24.2 De beneficiis, VII, 26, i.

3 The opinion according to which Seneca was in communication with St.

Paul, is groundless.


preaching philosophers, like Papirius Fabianus and later on

Dio Chrysostomus (about 30-116), who, leading the life of

the common people, spoke to them in theatres and from street-

corners, thus initiating them, as much as possible, into these

wholesome doctrines.

The summary we have just given refers to Pagan Philoso-

phy and Ethics at the time of the Apostolic preaching. But,as we advance towards the end of the ist century, and chiefly

during the 2nd, we see this philosophy assuming a more and

more religious character, blending itself more and more

dosely with religion, until, with Neoplatonism, it loses itself

in mysticism and contemplation. Thus, in Epictetus, we are

no longer told to live, as Stoics would say, in keeping with

the dictates of nature (secundum naturam suam vivere; se-

quere naturam)] but we are told to conform "to the law of

God," to have God continually before our eyes, in order to

adore Him and pray to Him and acknowledge His supreme

authority. Marcus Aurelius is a devout man who omits no

Pagan sacrifice and welcomes all religions.

Besides, Stoicism does its utmost to give of mythology an

explanation at the same time reasonable and in harmony with

its own principles. Jupiter becomes the soul of the world,

the primitive fire or ether; the Gods are mere personifications

of the energies that have emanated from him. The mostobscene fables are represented as so many ways to describe

natural phenomena; oracles and haruspices are approved.Plutarch of Chaeronea (about 50-138) framed a system, which

was later on vulgarized by Apuleius (about 120-195) amongthe Romans and which accounted for all the beliefs of Polythe-

ism and justified its practices. Between the Supreme God

(OVTW 6V) and the world, the demons or genii come and go,

some of whom are good and the organs of Providence and of

divine revelations; others, wicked, whimsical, light and the

authors of all the blunders and crimes ascribed to gods by


mythology. Still, Apuleius continues, to acknowledge their

benefits or turn away their wrath, we must honor all of themand pay to every one of them the worship he demands and in

the way in which he demands it. Whilst Stoicism and Pla-

tonism draw nearer and nearer to popular religion, a new

Pythagorism comes, in its turn, to urge on souls to the waysof asceticism and renunciation. Sextius of Rome, who lived

a short while after Cicero, had already recommended absti-

nence from meat: 'a recommendation which was renewed bySotion (ist century P. C). The ancient legend of Pythago-ras captivated again men's attention. His disciples extolled

continence and celibacy, imposed purifications and baptisms,^and made distinctions between this and that kind of food;at the same time, they applied themselves to occult sciences

and ascribed to numbers a secret influence. And with this,

we are brought in contact not only with the mysteries of ori-

ental religions, but also with gymnosophy and magic.

Such, then, was the religious, philosophical and moral state

of the Pagan world of Rome and Greece, at the time whichwitnessed the preaching of the Gospel and the foundation of

the Church. I have recorded only the features in which

Paganism was somewhat similar to the new teaching, andmoved forward, so to speak, to meet it. To sum up: thestate of the Pagan world can be expressed in the words; therewas confusion and uncertainty, and at the same time eager-ness for certainty and light. Metaphysics, the basis of all

the rest, was wavering; doubts prevailed as to the essenceof God, the nature and future existence of the soul andhence the moral aphorisms, which the sound reason of aCicero or a Seneca had found out, lost, in a great measure,their power. And yet, a great many souls were anxious to

get settled and for that purpose addressed themselves to anyhelp they thought they could find around: to mysteries,dreams, magic. However, above all that confusion of


thoughts, one thing stood, revered by all, the political unityand powerful organization of the Empire. If, later on, that

unity became a danger for Christianity, since it marshalled

against it the strongest and most extensive administration

that the world has ever seen, still, at the beginning it pro-cured for its expansion a wonderful facility, whilst it offered

at the same time an admirable model of the cohesion which

was to be found in the Church. Then, too, the right to

found, in that immense body politic, colleges and privateassociations of a character more or less religious, allowed the

followers of the new religion to place themselves within the

domain of law, there to find more than once a refuge in

case of persecution.

2. Religious and Moral Doctrines of the Jews at the time of the

Coming of Jesus. Palestinian Judaism.

After the death of Alexander the Great (323 B. c.), and even

soon after the Babylonian Captivity, the Jews began to form

two groups quite distinct: the Palestinian group, made up of

those who dwelt in the land of their ancestors and were im-

mediately connected with Jerusalem and the Temple; andthe group of the Dispersion (Diaspora), whose representa-

tives, after first inhabiting the territory near the Euphrates,

spread all over the Hellenic countries, and established them-

selves chiefly at Alexandria, and then, after the Roman con-

quest, could be found in large numbers in the Latin countries

and at Rome. From our standpoint, these two groups pre-

sent features quite different; hence we will study each of

them separately.1

1 The reader will find in W. BOTTSSET, Die Religion des Judmtums im neu-

testamentlichen Zeitalt&r (Berlin, 1903, pp. 49, ff.)> the list of the principal works

on that question. We will mention here only the most recent and important:

WELLHAUSEN, Israelitische und judische Geschichte, 4th Ed., 1901; SCHIJBER,

Geschichte des jtfdischen, Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3rd Ed., Leipsic, 1898-


If we start with the end of the Captivity (537 B. c.), we maydivide into five periods the history of the Jewish People in

Palestine: (i) The Persian period which extends to 330, when

Alexander conquers the land; (2) tht 'Greek period from 330to 165; (3) at this last date, the religious and patriotic spirit

of the Jews rises against the tyranny and persecution of An-

tiochus Epiphanes, and the Maccabees win back for their

country a semi-independence which lasts for one century

(165-63): this was the Asmonean period; (4) but dissension

breaks out between the Asmonean princes, Hyrcanus and

Aristobulus; called by the latter, Pompey conquers Jerusa-

lem (63 B. c.) and leaves Hyrcanus as ethnarch under the

supremacy of Rome: hence this may be called the Roman

period; (5) it lasted until the year 37 B. c., when the son of

Antipater, Herod, was acknowledged king by the Romans and

founded the dynasty named after him (37 B. c.-ioo A, D.).

During these six centuries, the Jews of Palestine came suc-

cessively in contact with the civilization of Persia and with

that of Greece. The former certainly influenced them: still,

it has been acknowledged that, from the point of view which

we are now considering, that influence can be detected onlyin the three domains of angelology, demonology, and escha-

tology, and that, even as to these points, Judaism has not

precisely borrowed foreign doctrines, but rather quickenedand developed its own doctrinal germs; so that Jewish char-

acteristics and peculiarities were but little affected by their con-

tact with Persia. Far more dreadful was that of Greece; for

1901 (English translation from the 2nd German Edit., New York, 1891);A. SCHLATTER, Israels Geschickte von Alexander dem Grosser bis Hadrian, Stutt-

gard, 1901; HOLTZMANN, Lehrbuch des neutestamenlichen Theologie, triburg in

Brisgau, 1897; DALMAN, Die Worte Jesu, Leipsic, 1898 (English translation,

1902); J. VERNES, Histoire des Idtes messianiques depuis Alexandra jusqit'dFempereur Hadrien, Paris, 1874; DRTJMMOND, The Jewish Messiah, 1877; R. II.

CHARLES, A Critical History of the doctrine of a future life in Israel, in Judaismand in Christianity, London, 1899. Several articles of the Revue Biblique andof various recent Bible Dictionaries may be consulted also with profit.


Hellenism had a far greater power of expansion and penetra-tion than Persian civilization ever possessed. For three cen-

turies and a half before Christ, it encompassed the Jews, settled

in their very midst and forced them, in spite of themselves, to

enter with it into constant relations. They had to make their

choice, between departing from their country and giving upall social life, or becoming hellenized, at least in a certain

measure. But the more the bulk of the nation felt invaded,in its external and public life, by foreign influence, the more it

strove, with an intense and jealous intolerance, to guard its

religious life against that influence, and to keep intact its be-

liefs and worship, its practices and customs, its privilege of

being a race chosen by God and separated from the Gentiles.

In the course of time, the letter of the Law was more and more

closely adhered to; then it was that interpreters, scribes andscholiasts of every description had their day of triumph. Asrelations with the Heathen gave rise to many difficulties about

the meaning of legal enactments, a casuistry voluminous in

size, narrow and formalistic in spirit, endeavored to give thema solution and, in case of need, to complete the Law. This be-

came and was later on called the Hdakha, the tradition which

passes on from one generation to another. At the same time,

and in order to quicken patriotic and religious hopes, scribes

commented on the historical and prophetical parts of the

Sacred Books; they explained the moral precepts contained

in the gnomical books, and carefully gathered the more or

less legendary traditions and narratives with which imagina-tion had adorned the history of Israel. Thus was formed the

Agadah or Haggadah which is the subject of the Midmschimand makes up more than the third of the Babylonian Talmud.

Most assuredly these collections contain quite valuable in-

formation which may help us to get a precise knowledge of

the times which immediately preceded the coming of Jesus;

but sometimes it is rather difficult, nay impossible, to clear


up that information and profit by it, for lack of chronological

data. Hence it is by perusing chiefly the Judseo-Palestinian

literature of that time, i. e., the writings composed from 200

B. c. to 100 A. D., most of which are in the Agadah, that we can

draw the picture of the religious and moral doctrines of the

Palestinian Jews at that time.

These writings are of two kinds: the canonical and the

apocryphal books. Among the former, which are better known,we must mention the Maccabean Psalms which cannot al-

ways be discerned with certainty, Ecclesiasticus, the first

book of the Maccabees, those of Judith and Tobias, and per-

haps, according to many scholars, the book of Daniel. Amongthe Apocryphal books, the principal are (i) The Book of

Henoch, whose chapters I-XXXVI and LXXII-CV go back

to 133-100 B. c., whilst chapters XXXVII-LXXI are not

older than the year 37 B. c. The fragments relating to Noe,that are interpolated in chapters XXXVII-LXXI, and in-

clude moreover chapters CVI and CVII, are still more recent,

though it is impossible to assign their date. (2) Tlie EighteenPsalms of Solomon (shortly after 63 B. c.). (3) The Assiimp-tion of Moses (first years of the Christian era). (4) The Fourth

Book of Esdras (81-96 A. D.). (5) The Book of Jubilees (ist

century of Christian era). (6) Tfo Apocalypse of Baruch

(70 A. B.-ISO). (7) The Book of the Secrets of Henoch, at the

latest at the end of the ist century, or in the first years of the

2nd. (8) The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, interpolated

by Christians at the end of the ist or at the beginning of the

2nd century. (9) The Apocalypse of Abraham, earlier than the

middle of the 2nd century. (10) The Paralipomena of Jere-

mias, interpolated during the 2nd century, though its substanceis more ancient, (u) The Martyrdom of Isaias, a compositework of which the precise age cannot be determined,1

1 There is necessarily a certain diversity of opinion, among scholars as tothe dates to which those writings should be ascribed; I have mentioned the


What stands out most prominently in this literature, is,

above all, the monotheistic character of the nation we are

studying. There was a time when they were strongly in-

clined to idolatry; but, after the exile, such a tendency is

replaced by abhorrence for everything that pertains to

Paganism. At the same time, the transcendent character of

the Deity is more explicitly held; His name, always ineffable,

is superseded by equivalents, all of which proclaim His great-

ness and sovereignty; the expression" Father" is compara-

tively rare. Anthropomorphisms are explained and softened;

divine attributes are more distinctly analyzed. Among these,

sanctity is insisted upon, inasmuch as it implies the separationfrom any kind of impurity, physical or moral; a doctrine

whose consequences are seen in the eschatological beliefs

about the last purifications.

Is there, at this epoch and in these Palestinian surroundings

any trace of a trinitarian doctrine, at least in germ? Per-

haps in germ, but as yet, certainly very obscure. As to the

Holy Ghost, it does not seem that the ideas about His exist-

ence or nature were more perfect than those to be found in

more ancient books. The Spirit of God is mentioned

rather seldom; and when He is mentioned, it looks as a faint

echo of what we read in the previous literature. In regard to

the Word, it cannot be denied that the tendency, alreadymanifest in Proverbs (8, 9), to make a person of God's wisdom,

dates given by SCHURER, GeschicMe desjiidischen Volkes, vol. 3 (English TransL,vol. 3), who supplies more details about the origin and editions of those works.

For the Book of Henoch, the edition of J. FLEMMING and L. RAJDERMACHER, DasBuck Enoch

, Leipsic, 1901, should be consulted. More of those apocryphalbooks may be found in the translation of KAUTZSCH, Die Apocryphen und

Pseudepigraphen des alien Testaments, vol. 2y Leipsic, 1900. Moreover, weknow that, besides those which have been preserved, there were also in circu-

lation many other writings of the same kind that have either completely or

nearly altogether perished. Among others, we may mention a Prayer of Joseph,

fragments of which are quoted by Origen (In loan., vol. II, cap. 25; Lommatzsch,

1, 147).


is found likewise in Eccksiasticus (i, 24). The first-born of

God, created before all ages, that wisdom has assisted God in

the creation and organization of the world; it has, then, a

part in nature and in the moral life also; by it all virtues are

inspired and from it all good life proceeds (24, passim). That

personification may be found also in the two works ascribed

to Henoch.1

On the other hand the Jews had long been wont to con-

sider the Word, i. e., the "Logos" of God, as a power emanat-

ing of course from Him, but still having its own existence.

That conception, which appears in the Apocalypse of Bamch

($64) and in the Fourth Book of Esdras (6

43) made the explana-

tion of Biblical anthropomorphisms easy, by attributing to

an intermediary being whatever might be offensive in them,and we see that such a conception was frequently used bythe Targums of which the redaction was finished only in

the 4th century, although the elements are more ancient.

In them the Menui (word) takes God's place, everytime a work ad extra is referred to: creation, manifestation,revelation.

However, had we no further teachings, we might regardsuch a manner of speaking as nothing but a bold prosopopeia,and the reason why, in these passages, we should not take the

words too literally, is that other attributes of God had been

already the object of similar, though less precise personifica-

tions; for instance His glory,2 His name,

3 His face.4 TheSchekinS, (God's glory) plays in the Talmud the same partas the Memr& does in the Targums; in the Mischna, com-

posed about 200 A. P., the immediate subject of theophanies

1Henoch, XLII, i, 2, etc.; Book of the Secrets of Henoch, XXX, 8, and

XXXm, 4 (recension A).*Exod., 34"**, 23

18"22; Isafas, 4Q

6J Eaech., 3" etc.

9Isaias, 59"; Ps. ioi16

; Exod., 23**, etc.4Eaod., 33"; Itafar., 4

87; Lament., 4"

is the Metatr6n (^erafyoz/o??), the first of spirits, though wecannot determine at what precise time these conceptions were

first framed.

But an important idea appearing then is that of the pre-existence of some more considerable persons or objects which

are only manifested and externally revealed (<f>avepov<r6ai) ,

when they appear in the world. Of course, every thing is al-

ways present to God, whose eternity knows neither past nor

future, and in this sense, it is true that everything preexists

in the knowledge He has of it. However, it seems that a

greater privilege was granted to those who were to approachHim most closely and to become, once in the world, the sub-

ject of His predilection or the instrument of His designs, nayto objects and institutions referring to His worship. It wasa preexistence whose nature, whether merely ideal or ob-

jective and concrete, was not rigorously defined, though it

was certainly not ascribed to all beings indiscriminately.1

Perhaps that idea had its foundation in Exodus, 2540

: Inspiceet fac secundum exemplar quod tibi in monte wionstratum est.

Anyhow, this much is certain: that at the time of which

we are speaking, we find that notion applied to Jerusalem, to

the Temple, to the Law, and also to some personages, Moses,

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.2 We shall see that it was applied,

quite naturally indeed, to the Messias.

Then, this doctrine is in perfect harmony with the doctrine

of God creator of the universe, a doctrine which the Jewishconscience energetically maintains (Eccli., i

8). The first ob-

jects of that creation are the angels. During the post-exilian

age, angelology made great progress among the Jews. Atthe time of which we are speaking, that development is scarcely

1 DALMAN (Die Worte Jesu, 245; English transl., pp, 299, f.), denies, how-

ever, that it was then a principle of Jewish Philosophy.2Apoc. of Baruch, 4*; MidraschBere$chithrabla,&', Assumpt. of Moses, i

14;

Prayer of Joseph, in Qrigen, In loan.) II, 25 (Lomm., I, 147).


noticeable in the Canonical books; such is not the case in the

Apocryphal works; here imagination was given free scope.

Angels, very many in number, are the intermediaries of divine

communications. They have a hierarchy and leaders; seven

among them are constantly standing before God. The prin-

cipal of them are known, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, 1

They are set over the various countries and oppose the hostile

powers; they are also in charge of the elements.2Still, all

the Angels did not remain faithful to God. A belief quite

popular connects the fall of those who revolted, with the nar-

rative of Genesis, 62"4

: impurity was the cause of their ruin.3

These fallen Angels also have leaders, about whose namestraditions are rather confused, Azazel, Semiaza, Mastemaor Satan, Beliar.4 Though they are bound in hell, still theyprompt us to evil; however, such a part is left chiefly to thosewho were born of them, viz., to the demons. 5

After the Angels, man comes under our consideration. TheJewish doctrine about his nature had always been short andconcrete enough, and it was such, at the time of Jesus. Itwas known only that in him there are two elements and thathe does not perish altogether with death. What engrossedfar more the attention of the Jew, was the situation resultingfor him from his inclination to evil, on the one hand, and the

help to be derived from the observance of the Law, on theother. Many passages show us that St. Paul was not the first

to reflect on these problems and ask himself which is the partof man and that of God, in the work of salvation. Man'sweakness was deeply felt, the universality of sin, acknowledged

1Tobias, ra; Dan., zo13

, 816

; Henoch, 91; 4 Esdr.. s

20.

2Daniel, ro13 ,

*, is1

; Jub., 2s .

8Jub., s

s-n '

} Henoch, 6-16; Apoc. of Baruch, 56* .

Henoch, f, g*, 6*; Jub., *>, 17" 10*; Tata*, of the Twelve Patriarch,Simeon 5, Levi

19,etc.

5Henoch, 15^16*; Jub., io, foil. Cf. HACESRXL, in the

1902, pp. 527, foil,


without hesitation.1 That weakness was represented as a

heritage from Adam, together with death itself: tu quid

fecisti, Adam ? Si enim tu peccasti, non est factum solius tnus

casuSj $ed et nostrum qui ex te advenimus (4 Esd.j 7118

).2 In

this passage, as it is easy to see, the author nearly expressesthe doctrine of original sin. The consequence he draws there-

from is that it would have been better for man never to be

born, and that far more happy are brutes which fear neither

judgment nor torment after death (y116"126

; ). However,the loss of the reward is not a fatal one; and each one of us,

after all, remains the arbiter of his own destiny; Adam acted

only for himself, each one of us is the Adam of his own soul.3

What then is to be done? To observe the Law; for it is byhis works that man is saved.4 But we know how burdensomeand complex that Law has become at the hands of Jewish

casuists, how narrow the road to salvation seemed to be, and

therefore, whilst the pious and sincere Jew unhesitatingly

believed that most men would be lost, he would multiply his

penances and austerities, and in conclusion appeal to God's

mercy, as the only resource which was left him in that ex-

tremity: In hoc enim adnuntiabitur iustitia tua el lonitas tua,

Domine, cum misertus fwris ds qui non habent substantiam

operum lonorum (4 Esd.j 836) ;for he felt crushed between his

inability to observe the whole Law, and that Law which re-

mained inflexible before his weakness: Nos quidem qui legem

accepimus peccantes peribimus, et cor nostrum quod suscepit

1Quis enim est de praesentibus qui non peccavitj vel quis natorum qui non

prael&rhit sponsionem tuam ? (4 Esd.j ^ 48; Henoch, is

4; Apoc. of Baruch,

4***).2 Cf. 4 Bsd., 3

21'

ffi

; Apoc. of Bar., 334

, 4*-8 Non est ergo Adam causa nisi animae suae tantum, nos vero unusguisque fait

animae suae Adam. (Apoc. of Bar., 54") . Cf. 4 Esd., S58.

4Tobias, i 1-12

; 4 Esd., f^* TO; Apoc. of Baruch, si

7. Still faith is necessary;

it is placed side by side with, works, nay on the same level (Henock, 467, 6s

6 ' 7;

4 Esd., 13, 9s

).


earn; nam lex non peril, sed permanet in suo honore (4 E$d.,

936'37

;cf.

28"37). Do not these words remind us of St, Paul

(Rom., 7)?

What will become of men after death? In the well known

passage, is1"3

,Daniel had already spoken of the resurrection

which awaited, on the last day, the good and the wicked

among his people; the 'former, to be rewarded; the latter,

punished. But in this passage, the allusion is only to the last

judgment. On the other hand, Josephus tells us (De "hello iud.,

II, 8, n), that, according to the Essenes, souls are, forever,

immediately after death, happy or unhappy: a doctrine

which, most assuredly, they had not borrowed from Judaism.The true expression of Jewish thought is found in the Book of

Henoch, the Fourth Book of Esdras and that of Jubilees1

; they

proclaim a temporary punishment or happiness until the final

retribution and the sentence of the Great Judge.It is always this last sentence, which is appealed to by the

faithful Jew, oppressed by enemies who insultingly laugh at

his faith and hopes. The more the human means of religious

and national restoration get away and recede from him, the

more ardently too he turns towards the Supreme Justice which

will render to every one, nations or individuals, according to

his deeds, and the more intense also becomes his expectationof the Messias who will set up God's kingdom and restore

order in every thing.

The idea of the Messias is intimately connected, in Jewish

minds, with the events of the last days of the world. Howthings will be then conducted and what plan followed: this

is a point on which they do not agree. Some place the reignof the Messias before, others after, the judgment and final

consummation. Anyhow, we must consider more attentivelythose doctrines, which, afterwards, Christian Dogma was to

express with far more precision and greatly to transform,

Henoch, iS1-*' *, 22 u-u,io- *; 4 $sd., 7

78'101;


It is chiefly, nay almost exclusively to the Apocryphal

Books, that we must look to find the ideas then prevalentabout the Messias. I have already remarked that they as-

'cribe to him preexistence: "I saw one whose head was heavywith days . . . and near him was another [personage] whose

aspect was that of a man, and his face was graceful, as that

of a holy Angel (Henoch, 46*) . . . Before the sun and the

signs were created, and the stars of the heavens, made, his namewas uttered before the Lord of spirits . . . And therefore he

has been chosen and hidden before Him before the creation

of the world, even from all eternity (Ibid., 483-6

)." Howeverthese expressions are rather vague, and it is worthy of notice

that the books or passages in which they are found are per-

haps, nay certainly, later than the coming of Jesus.

On the other hand, the Messias is represented as the Chosen

One, the Son of Man, the Son of David, the Christ, the Christ

of the Lord, the Son of God. 1 The idea that is everywhere

suggested of him is that of a prince, the peculiar prince of the

Jewish people, who shall come and set up upon earth an ideal

kingdom in wiiich God will be served, as He wishes. Some-

times, he appears as the avenger of God's rights and the de-

stroyer of the wicked. He is a warlike Messias who carries the

sword and crushes the nations, or destroys his enemies with a

word of his mouth, by the power of truth and of law, andrules the people by his sanctity and justice.

2 In this case, his

reign precedes the end of the world and often is only tempo-

rary.3 At other times, God takes upon Himself to avenge His

own cause. The judgment first takes place; the wicked are

punished and then the Messias appears. He rules forever

1Henoch, 45* and passim, 46

2-4, etc., 105*; 4 Esd., 482 (Syriac translation),

729

, is32

, i49;Ps. of Solomon, ly

23* 85

,i86

'8.

2 Ps. ofSolom., i?28-*1

; Apoc. ofBaruch, stf-A-c?, 72; 4 Esdr., 1387

' 38t 4fl.

8 Ps. of Solomon, 17, 18; Henoch, gi"-15

; Apoch. of Bar., 40s, 74

2. The

Fourth Book of Esdras ascribes to it 400 years of duration; the Secrets ofHenoch (which, however, does not mention the Messias), 1000 years (32^-33*).


over a transfigured Israel with a new Jerusalem for his capi-

tal.1

Finally, at other times, as in the chapters of the Simili-

tudes mEenoch (37-70), the Messias is at the same time, judge,

executor and eternal king. This is the highest conception of

his functions, which is met with in that literature, the one in

which the apex of magnificence and greatness is set before us.

However, that greatness never goes beyond the greatness

of a created being; it reaches at most that of a supernatural

being, never Divine greatness; the Jews never dreamt of a

Messias who was God. 2 Nor did they ever think, then, of an

expiating and suffering Messias. True, in the Fourth Book

of Esdras (729), the Christ dies, but of a natural death, as a

man who disappears, after doing his work. Though a few

passages have been pointed out here and there, in subsequent

documents, passages which would imply that the Jews had,

at the epoch now before us, some thought of the painful satis-

faction of the Messias, these indications are rather faint and

inconclusive. It is quite evident, from the language of the

Evangelists, that the current of thoughts was not at all in

that direction.3

What we have just said about Messianic beliefs gives us,

partly at least, an insight into Palestinian eschatology in the

time of Jesus. The eschatological systems of the ApocryphalBooks can be reduced to two fundamental types, which havefor their basis the more or less long duration, eternal or

temporary, ascribed to the rule of the Messias. In the

first, the coming of the Messias coincides with the end of the

world; when he appears, the wicked league together against

him, but they are defeated; the universal judgment takes

place: the wicked are punished; the just triumph for ever

1Henoch, go

87.

2JUSTIN, Dialog, with Trypho, 49, Otto, II, 164.

8Matt., I622

; Luke, i834, 24

21; John, i&. Cf. Scnt/RER, Gcsch. des jitd.

Volk. t26W

-M6. (English trans!., 2nd Div., Vol. 2, p. 184-187).

with the Messias. In the second, the reign of the Messias

comes to an end before the end of the world. After conquer-

ing his enemies, he rules for a while the nation of the just, then

the universe is transformed, the dead rise again and are

judged; every man gets his reward or his punishment, eter-

nity begins. As is easy to see, the elements are identical in the

two systems and differ only by their arrangement. When we

pay closer attention, we find in both: (i) The signs fore-

running the final catastrophe: disturbance of nature and the

overthrow of her laws, awe-inspiring phenomena, wars,

famines, universal anxiety, etc.1

(2) The coming of Elias whois to re-establish all things, aTro/caraa-r^crei iravra (Matt.,

i7,10 ' n

; Mark, g1Q-12

;cf. EccK., 48

10). (3) The advent of the

Messias in the circumstances already mentioned, either pre-

ceding or accompanying or following the judgment and final

consummation. (4) The coalition of the wicked against him,under the leadership of one whose name is not given, but

whom Christian documents will call Antichrist.2(5) The

defeat and utter ruin of the allies, sometimes by God Himself,other times and more often by the Messias,8

(6) The Messianic

rule with a new Jerusalem, cleansed of the idolaters by whomshe was contaminated,

4 or even come down from heaven;5 with

all the Jewish nation even the dead called together fromtheir dispersion;

6 with God for supreme leader and abso-

lute king (jSacriXeia rou Qeov) ;

7 with its unmixed prosperity,

profound peace, perfect joy and happiness.8

(7) The trans-

1 4 Esd., S1^ S20^, etc.; Jvb., 23^; Apoc. of Bar., 27, 4&, etc.

24 Esd., I3

88,

ff. ; Henoch, go16

; Apoc. of Bar. , 40.8Henoch, go

18-19; Assumpt. of Moses, lo3 ' 7

;Ps. of Solom., i7

27 89; Apoc. of

Bar., 397-4<^ etc.; 4 Esd., 12, , i3

27'28

,

37-ss

.

4 Ps. of Solom., I726

*33

.

5 Hmock, ss6; 4 Esd., 7

26;

cf. Gala*., 42e

; Heb., I222; Apoc., 3

12,2i2

>10

.

6 Ps. of Solom., ii3,ff., i7

28; 4 Esd., i3

3JWr.

7 Ps. of Solom., ii1,4.8S

*a

; Assumpt. of Moses, i6* *.

8Henoch, iolfi-n; Apoc. of Bar., 29*-*, 73

2-7; Ps. of Solom., 1728,29,86,4^

etc,


formation of the world by the destruction of what was before

corruptible and mortal. 1(8) The resurrection of the dead.

This is one of the points on which there was most progress.

In the 2nd century B.C., the Jews seem to have admitted the

resurrection of the Israelites alone, or even of the just alone,

that they may have a share in the rule of the Messias. After-

wards, a general resurrection was believed.2 (9) The last

judgment. In the hypothesis of a reign of the Messias before

the end of the world, a first judgment takes place when the

Messias destroys and condemns the enemies allied against

him. Now, we have to deal with the last judgment. Exceptin Henoch (4i

9, 6g

27, etc.), where this function is vested in the

Messias, God Himself is set forth as the judge of the world,

and His examination bears on all human deeds recorded in

the book of Heaven.3(10) The final destiny of men. As a

consequence of the divine sentence, the just are rewarded, the

wicked, punished. We have seen that, immediately after

their death, a temporary retribution is meted out to the just

and to the wicked; the last judgment will make it a definite

state. The wicked will be cast down into the fire, the Gehenna*

where they will stay for ever. Josephus tells us expresslythat such was the belief of the Pharisees. There will beno room for prayers or intercessions of one for another. 6

As to the elect, they will be received into Paradise in a high

place where they shall see the majesty of God and of His

angels. Their faces shall shine as the sun; they shall live

eternally.6

1 4 Esd., 780

*; Afoe. of Bar., 74

2'"3

.

2Apoc. of Bar., 50, 51; 4 Esd., 7

s2.37

; Testam. of the Twelve Pair., Benjanun,10.

8 4 Esd., T83

, ff.; Henoch, 98*.8

, io47; Testam. of the Twelve Pair., Aser, 7.

44 Esd., 7

36'88 W

J Apoc. of Bar., 44".

JOSEPH., De Bella tod., II, 8, 14; Antiq., XVHI, i, 3; Testam., of theTwelve Pafr., Zabulon, 10; Aser, 7; 4 Esd., 7

lofi.

64 Esd., 7

8W8*

6-98; Apoc. of Bar., 51 ,*; Asswnft. of Moses,


These, then, were the religious ideas prevalent among the

Jews of Palestine, at the time of the coming of Jesus: which

does not mean that they were accepted by all; as a matter of

fact, there were serious divergences of opinion about some -of

them. We know especially and this is worth noticingthat the Sadducees, the high clergy of Jerusalem and its

partisans were not in agreement with the Pharisees and the

bulk of the people, and scouted commentaries which aimed

at explaining the Law, together with many prescriptions that

had been added to it. They went even farther, and denied

the existence of spirits and angels and the resurrection of the

body.1 Their attitude towards the Heathen was rather con-

ciliatory, and, anxious as they were to keep up their influence

and peacefully enjoy their wealth, they did not hesitate to

enter into many compromises. Still, after all, they did not

represent the mass of the nation. The latter was gatheredaround the Pharisees, who, in its eyes, embodied the purityof the doctrine and the ideal of the morals, of the Jews living

in Palestine.

3. Alexandrian Judaism and that of the Dispersion. Philo.

Outside of Palestine, the Jews were found in great numbers

chiefly at Alexandria, from the time of Alexander, and still

more from that of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus (319 B. c.).

There, their intellectual activity was considerable and theycame into closer contact with Hellenism. Hence it is that the

features proper to the Judaism of the Dispersion are more

conspicuous at Alexandria than in any other place, and madeknown to us almost exclusively by the writings that come

from Egypt. No wonder, therefore, that in the following

pages, we consider Hellenistic Judaism, chiefly as it exhibited

itself at Alexandria.

1Acts, 238.


As soon as they settled in that city, the Jews began to learn

Greek; they forgot Hebrew to such an extent that a transla-

tion of the Bible soon became necessary. But to learn and

speak Greek was, at the same time, to penetrate into Greek

literature, Philosophy, conceptions, and genius, into the civi-

lization and spirit that language represents, into all that madethe Greek race the mistress and teacher of the ancient classi-

cal world. What attitude were the Jews to take towards that

world new for them? Were they, like their brethren of Pal-

estine, to shut themselves up within the Law, and repeat

against the Heathen and their speculations the propheticalanathemas of old, or were they to seek for a ground of concili-

ation that would secure both their interests and their faith ?

This latter course they made up their minds to follow: the

more readily that it was for them the only one truly practical,

remote as they were from their country and from any reli-

gious centre. The system they adopted, and of which we find

in Philo a complete expression, can be summed up in the

following points: (i) The Jew remains a Jew; Israel is the

chosen nation, possessing in the Books of the Old Testament

the complete and pure religious truth: a truth which rests ontwo fundamental dogmas: monotheism and the immortalityof the soul. (2) Yet, Heathenism is not altogether deprivedof that truth. Either through an oral tradition, or because

they borrowed from the sacred Books of the Jews, its most

distinguished philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato, and others,

knew, in part at least, the true doctrine about God, Provi-

dence, man. (3) Therefore nothing stands in the way, on one

hand, of the Greeks adopting Biblical teachings as a com-

plement and sometimes a rectification of their Philosophy,nor, on the other hand, of the Jews adopting those specula-tions provided, of course, they are in keeping with theLaw which the Greek genius has multiplied in the field of

Metaphysics, Psychology, and Ethics, these speculations,


after all, being but derivations from that Revelation of whichthe early records are in the hands of the Jews. (4) However,as Greek mythology seems rather strange to Jewish minds,and Jewish Philosophy and History rather meagre to Greek

minds, it is necessary to show the true contents of both:

to see, in Greek fabulous narratives, only the religious andmoral idea they express in making it pass into action, and to

be able to find out, under the simple narratives of the Bible,

all the philosophical and religious ideas that God has vouch-

safed to hide therein. We must explain away the former andrender the latter capable of development and see in both

nothing but allegories. This was the principle of the alle-

gorical method applied to Scripture interpretation which wasto become the glory of Alexandrian scholars. The facts re-

corded in the Bible, are, sometimes, historical; other times,

not: they are then mere symbols. Anyhow, that matters very

little; but what does matter, is to bring out of these narra-

tives the idea they contain, the teaching concealed therein,

which God wished to inculcate upon us by directing that theyshould be written down, (5) And thus, as the Alexandrian

Jews thought, there will be a conciliation between Judaismand Hellenism: without ceasing to be a Philosophy, the latter

will become a Religion, because it will adopt the supernatural

principle of Revelation with its consequences; without ceas-

ing to be a Religion, the former will become a Philosophy, for

it will search out by means of reason under the revealed letter,

the rational doctrines therein latent.

There are, in this programme, three points which strike us:

(i) The little importance ascribed to legal ceremonies: some

doctors declaring them indifferent; others, like Philo, think-

ing that they were useful for a better understanding of the

Law and were to be preserved. (2) The universal character

assumed by the Jewish religion: it ceases to be a national

worship and becomes the religion of all. (3) The insignifi-


cant part played by the idea of the Messias: the image of

a personal Messias is replaced by that of the Messianic era;

the triumph of a given individual, by that of a doctrine or a

nation.

Such are the outlines of the religious Judaeo-Alexandrian

system. Still, besides this general conception, there are a few

particular doctrinal features which ought to" be pointed out.

They are found in the Canonical Books written by Hellenistic

Jews and in the authentic or apocryphal books which were

not placed in the Canon. Among the former, we must men-

tion the Greek translation of the LXX, begun in the 3rd cen-

tury and finished towards the middle of the 2nd century B. c.,

the Book of Wisdom, the Second Book of Maccabees, and per-

haps, too, the deutero-canonical additions of Esther and of

Daniel, as well as the second part of the Book of Baruch;

among the latter, the Third and the Fourth Book of Maccabees,the Letter of the Pseudo-Aristeas, the Sibylline Oracles, in their

most ancient parts, the anonymous Apocalypse edited byG. Steindorff,

1 the Fragments of Aristobulus, the writings of

Phflo and of Josephus.2

1 Die Apokalypse des Ellas, eine unbekannte Apokalypse, und Bntchstiickc

der Sophonias-Apokdlypse> Leipsic, 1899. Steindorff would date it from about100 B. c.

2 The full exposition of the Judaeo-Hellenic literature may be found with in-

dication of dates and editions, in ScatftLER, Gesch. des jild. Volk., v. Ill, 304-542 (English TransL, 2nd I)iv., v. 3, pages 156-381). KATJTZSCH (Die Apok.und Pseudep. desA.T., II) gives most of the Apocryphal works. The two mostimportant fragments of Aristobulus are in EUSEBIUS, Praep. evang., VIII, 10;

XIII, 12. The oldest Jewish portions of the Sibylline Oracles are the foil.:

Book in, 97-828 (145-117 B.C.); 36-92 (about 40-30 B.C.); the 84 verses

quoted by Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autolyc., II, 36, Otto, VIII, 164), whichprobably made the beginning of Book III; the whole Book IV (about So A. D.)and the greater part of Book V (end of ist century). To the editions of thislast work, mentioned by Schiirer, we may add that published by GEFPCKEN,1902. A certain number of verses composed by Jews and attributed to themost ancient Greek poets, Orpheus, Hesiod, Homer, Linus (or Callimachus),^Eschylus, etc., were also circulated, as early as the 3rd century B. c., whichconfirmed the teachings and narratives of Moses, They are quoted by Aristobu-


The fundamental doctrine of these works generally agrees

with that of Palestinian books; yet there are a few points in

which there is some difference between them. Thus in the

former we find a greater care to avoid or explain anthro-

pomorphisms, when God is spoken of. Then too, Wisdom is

personified, but in a still more distinct way than in Proverbs

and Ecclesiasticus. Aristobulus (EusEB., Praep. evangel.,

XIII, 12, 5) quotes as a verse of Orpheus the following pas-

sage: "Before the world was made, the ancient Word shines.

He subsists by himself and everything subsists by him; hemoves about everywhere, and no man sees him; but he sees

both of us." In the book that bears its name, Wisdom is

described in terms that will be used by Christian scholars writ-

ing about the Word or the Holy Ghost (7-11; cf. especially

725 ' 23

). Emanating from God, it has His attributes (y22"23

); it

is compared or identified with the Holy Spirit (gir

) ;it plays

the part of a demiurge (g2 ' 9

), though it has also, nay chiefly,

a moral part (84"8

; 10, n). These details show us and this

is worth noticing that long before Philo, there existed at

Alexandria, in a more or less definite shape, doctrines which

he did not create, though he did develop them.

In man, the soul is quite distinct from the body, nay is

opposed to it and suffers from its being united with it.1 This

is Greek dualism. That soul is immortal: which applies also

to the souls of the wicked; otherwise, we could not account

for the fine picture presented in the sth chapter of Wisdom.

All souls, then, must survive, to receive the reward or pun-ishment due to them.2

lus and also by the Fathers of the Church, Clement of Alexandria, the Pseudo-

Justin (Cohortatio ad Graecos, De monarchia). These forgeries agree well with

what was said above, as to the pretension of deriving Greek traditions from

the Bible.1Wisd., 819,

20, Q

* Wisd., 31-8

, 42,

l(w8, 5

1-**. Anonym. Apocalypse, STEINDOEPF, op. cit.t

pp. 149 (2), 150 (5), 152 (10).


Taking all in all, eschatology is more simple in the Judaeo-

Hellenic literature than in the Palestinian. We leave aside

the Sibylline Books whose character naturally called for more

graphic descriptions. Their most ancient author knows the

evils which must precede the end of the world and the com-

ing of the Messias (III, 796-806, 632-651), the rule of this

victorious and peace-making Messias (III, 652-660), the

league formed by wicked princes against him and his people

(III, 660-668), the defeat of the allies and their crushing at

the hands of God Himself (III, 669-697), the definitive and

eternal dominion of the Messias, His messenger (III, 767-

784, 712-731, 744-758, etc.). In the other writings, as we have

already remarked, hopes that are properly messianic have

been generally relegated to the back-ground. Not indeed,

that they are passed by altogether : we find reminiscences of

them in Philo, in the second book of Maccabees, and perhapstoo in Josephus;

* but the fate of souls after death and at the

end of time seems to have attracted most attention. It maybe that Josephus

2admitted, with the Pharisees, a temporary

condition of the just souls VTTO %dovd$, until the resurrection,

and all know the celebrated passage of the second book of

Maccabees (is42"45

) on prayer for the dead.3

Still the pre-dominant idea in Hellenic Judaism is that of a retribution,

immediately after death. Anyhow, all our witnesses agree in

declaring both the rewards of the just and the punishmentsof the wicked eternal.

4

As to the resurrection of the body, though it was generally

opposed by Greek philosophy, chiefly by that of Plato, we

1PHTLO, De execrat., 8-9; Depraem. etpoen., 15-20; 2 Macchab,, 218

; JOSEPH.,Antiq., IV, 6, 5.

2ANTIQ., XVIII, i, 3.

8 Cf. too Anonym. ApocaL, pp. 154, 155 (15-17).4PHILO, De Cherub. t i, De execrat., 6; JOSEPH., Antiq., XVHI, i, 3; De Bello

iud., II, 8, 14; WISD., 3*, 4*ltt

; 4 Macch., g9,12" i$, 175.

PHILO AND HIS SYSTEM 49

find it formally taught, at least as far as the just are concerned,in the second Book of Maccabees (7'

u 14 2S;I243 '

**).

It is in Philo,1 as has been already said, that the system

which is to bring together Judaism and Hellenism assumes

its definitive shape. In him the two currents of ancient

thought are truly blended. Philo is both a believer and a phi-

losopher, but he is, to say the least, a philosopher just as

much as a believer. Some of his doctrines have been

already pointed out here and there. Among his other doc-

trines, the following may be mentioned.

God appears in his works more concrete than in Plato's

(o &v\ though He is conceived in the same way. Of this God,

nothing limited or even precise can be affirmed, for any pre-cision is a limit, and any property, an exclusion. Of course

He is eternal, immutable, simple, free and independent; butit is far better to say simply that He is (ty& dpi 6 &v $ p6vq>

Trpoa-etTTL rb elvai), for in reality He is a-Trmo?, without any

quality and property.

How shall this God placed so far above, be able to create

the finite and communicate with it? How can the latter

come from the infinite, the evil from God? Such was the great

problem which preoccupied Plato's philosophy and which

Philo attempts to solve by combining or rather by mixingfor his system is altogether lacking in unity by mixing to-

gether the Platonic concept of ideas, the Stoic concept of the

soul, as a force latent in the world, the Greek belief about

1 On Philo, cf. the abundant literature given by SCEURER, Gesch. des jud.

Volk., v. Ill, 487, 542 (English transL, and Div., vol. Ill, pp. 321, 362). Ex-

cellent summaries of his philosophy may be found in ZELLER, Die Phttos. dcr

Griechen, III, 2, 353, foil.; SCHURER, loc. cit., pp. 544, ff. (English transl., pp.

363, ff.); EDERSHEIM, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, IV, 377, ff.

These authors should be consulted for more detailed information. Cf. too,

HERRIOT, Philon k Jttif, Paris, 1898; BR&EIER, Les idtes pkilosophtques et

rdiieu$e$ de Philon d'Alexandrie, Paris, 1908; the article "Philo and the

Catholic Judaism of the first century," in the Journal of Theological Studies,

vol. XI, pp. 25-42.


demons and the Biblical teaching about Angels. In God wefind the ideas according to which He creates the world; but

those ideas are forces at the same time: there is the creative

power (creativa, deus), which brings forth the beneficent power

(benefica), and the royal power (regia, dominus) on which the

legislative power depends (legislativa, percussiva). Others are

mentioned by Philo, who does not aim at reckoning all these

powers; for they are innumerable. These dynamic ideas

("idees-forces") are the intermediaries of God's action uponthe world, the ^OJOL through which He works: the Bible calls

them Angels; Philosophy, demoiis. But, as they did not

possess all the science nor all the sanctity of God, they were

unable to put into their work the perfection in which theywere lacking; hence comes imperfection and evil in the world.1

Are these dynamic ideas really distinct from God? Theymust be, unless we are willing to admit that God Himself

communicates with the finite and is the author of evil. Onthe other hand, they must not be distinct from God, if we con-

sider them as intermediaries by which the finite participatesin and comes from the infinite; and then too, if they are finite,

the problem to be solved in regard to the world is to be solved

in their regard also. Philo, who was anxious to maintain the

divine, though only mediately divine, origin of the world,could not, then, give to the question a precise answer. Hencehe is constantly oscillating, on this point, between the affirma-

tive and the negative and nowhere exhibits a doctrine well

defined. According to the needs of the system, divine powersare personified and embodied, or vanish away in the essence

of God; nothing is definite in their state.

The collection of all those powers constitutes the Word

1 "Man being so disposed that he sins often, God has used in his creationthe various powers, in order that only what is good in man may be referred toHim. It was not fitting that, in man's soul, God should trace the road to vice."

(De confusione lingwrum, 35.)

), who is at the same time their source and their syn-

thesis. Come from "Him who speaks," he is the principle of

the creative and beneficent, royal and legislative powers,

though he is also their sum and combination (o-woSo9, /e/oa<m).

Hence, like them, he presents a twofold aspect. In regard to

creation, he represents God, Whose image and active force

he is. He is His name, His shadow, His first-born son (vwvrp&Toyovos, TrpecrfivTaro? 0ov), His image, impress, and copy

(eifcd>v, xapa/crtfp, aTrei/cdvur/jia), therefore another God, a

second God (erepo? 0eo?, Sevrepo? flecfe); he is the reflexion

of God, the thought He contemplates (&z/oia, foawfycr^) ;he is

the principle, the oldest Angel, the many-named Archangel,

God's prophet and interpreter. On the other hand, in regardto God, the Word represents the universe and man whose

archetype he is and who, through him, has a share in God.

He is then, the man made after God's image (o /car' elfcova

avQpwrro$)\ t"Sensible man has been created after the image

of an intelligible and incorporeal man, who is the Word of

God/' 1 "The intelligible world is made up of ideas, incor-

poreal paradigms," and the Word is the sun paradigm ($Uo?

TrapdSeiypa), the archetype of the cause (apftfrwiro? rovalrbv).

And just as through the Word God creates and rules the

world, so also, through the Word, the universe gives thanks

to God and asks His favors : the Word is the high-priest, the

suppliant of the world (apxtepevs, licfrrjs). Hence he is not a

mere physical mediator; he seems to exercise, moreover, a

religious and moral mediation.

Is this Word personal and distinct from God? As for the

divine Powers, so also in this case, Philo does not give a clear

answer. He seems at the same time to affirm and to deny,and the reason of these hesitations is always the same* At

bottom, the Philonian concept of the Logos is self-contra-

*Qwest, et solid, in Genes., I, 4


dictory. A being must be God or creature, finite or infinite;

between these two extremes, Philo seeks a middle term: he

tells us that the Word is"neither unbegotten like God, nor

begotten like us, but in an intermediary way;"1 but such

words as these are a mere formula, a mere affirmation, the

desperate expedient of reason in presence of the mystery of

creation, and of the relations between the finite and the in-

finite.

Hence, we should not identify the Word of Philo with the

Word of Christianity, that of St. John. If the appellation is

the same, the concepts are not the same. Philo never con-

nected his Word with the Messias; neither did he have nor

could he have had the idea of the Incarnation. His Word is

above all a demiurgic and cosmic power, not a God revealer

and redeemer,2Still less should we look for the notion of the

Christian Trinity in the writings of the Alexandrian Jew; the

texts, which to some have seemed to convey it, have a quite

different meaning (cf. v. g. De Abrahamo, 24).

According to Philo, then, God creates by His Word andPowers. To create, perhaps, is not exactly the word which

should be used, for, to all appearances, Philo seems to admit

a primary matter (vX??, ovvta) co-eternal with God, shapeless,

without anything positive and good, the source of imperfec-tion and evil; into which matter God introduces a divine

element, the vow, the form and the life, in the measure in

which every being is capable of receiving it.

The first object of that creation are the Angels. They fill

the air. Some of them, placed in the highest spheres, are

occupied exclusively with the service of God; others, nearer

,> (Quis

r&rum divinarum haeres, 42).2 Often indeed Philo used the distinction between the \byos MMtrw and

the \6yos irpofapwdsj to express the relation of the expressed thought to theinternal thought, but he never applies that distinction to the divine \6yo$.


to this earth, have united themselves to bodies and becomethe souls of men. Demons are nothing but evil souls. Thus

participating in what is low and sensual in the body, souls also

are propagated by generation; however, the intellect (^ofc),

"the soul of the soul," comes from God. As it is easy to see,

Philo admits the preexistence at least of the first souls, and

trichotomy.

As well as matter of which it is made up, the body is es-

sentially evil: it is the jail in which the spirit is confined, the

corpse which the latter is obliged to carry along (veKpofopovcra).

By the very fact of its being in contact with the body, the

soul is stained and prompted to commit sin. Nobody, duringhis life, avoids that sin, if he relies exclusively on his own power

(ef eavrov). Nevertheless, Philo does not seem to have a

distinct idea of the original stain.

With views such as these, he could not be, in Ethics, any-

thing but a Stoic: which he is, as a matter of fact. To live

well is the aim of all science and study: the moral part of

Philosophy is the most important of all. We must then re-

nounce sensual pleasure and lead a life as simple and austere

as possible. Yet, Philo has not the pride of the Stoics: he

does not believe that man can by himself practise virtue, it

is God who gives him virtue and makes it grow in his soul:

to be virtuous is to come nearer to God. Finally and this

is the apex of Pbilo's system, these ascetic practices of the

soul, as well as the studies to which it applies itself, have onlyone aim: to lead it gradually to the direct contemplation of

God, to ecstasy. Ordinarily we know God only from His

works and in the attributes reflected by these works. But

ecstasy sets us free from reasonings, and takes us beyond the

attributes, nay beyond the Logos himself, to the divine essence

whose ineffable unity we realize. This is the intuitive vision

transported, for a while, upon earth.

It is easy to see how far Philo departs, on this point, from


what will be the Christian concept of salvation. He does

not know of any redemption or satisfaction. Ecstasy is only

the last effort of the mind in search of God: it is the lot of a

few, of philosophers and scholars.

***

Such were the moral and religious surroundings in which

Christian Doctrine was preached and began to develop. As

we have already said, they were necessarily to influence the

way in which the early Christians understood the revealed

teaching and expressed it for the following generations.

The influence of Palestinian Judaism was naturally the

first to exercise itself, since it was in Palestine that the Church

was founded. Such an influence can be detected in the Synop-tists and in certain interpretations and logical processes of

St. Paul, well calculated to puzzle us; it may still be found

in Christian eschatology; Millenarianism is nothing else than

a poor legacy of Judaism to Papias and others. However,that influence of Palestinian Judaism did not extend much

beyond the beginning of the second century. At this time,

Christianity broke with it definitely: it had then, and indeed

for a long time, reached the Greco-Roman world and addressed

itself to men who were not much preoccupied with the Lawand its commentaries.

The influence of Hellenic Judaism was more lasting. Since

it was, after all, a bridge joining the two civilizations, it wasused by Christianity, as an intermediary to reach the paganworld. Later on also, the exegetical process and the concep-tions of Alexandrian Judaism considerably affected the greatest

theological school of the first three centuries, that of Clementand Origen.

As to Hellenism strictly so called, it is chiefly by its Phi-

losophy and by its whole culture taken altogether, that it

acted on Christian doctrine. Principally after the time of

JEWISH AND HELLENIC INFLUENCE 55

the Apologists, Christians began to reframe mentally in Greekthe Palestinian Gospel; viz., they threw into a Greek mould,

they enclosed in the forms and categories of Greco-Roman

thought the data of Revelation; they began to conceive themand reason about them according to the way in which Greeks

used to conceive and reason. The Greek mind was inquisitive:

hence new questions arose; then it was fond of defining andaimed at rigorous exactness; hence definitions were preparedand given, a rigorous orthodoxy was aimed at. By a slow

assimilation, what was broadly human, what had been deeply

thought out and delicately analyzed, in Greek Ethics and Meta-

physics, passed into the Evangelical doctrine, to fecundate andconnect the teachings of the latter. Most assuredly, that

influence of Hellenism was not altogether sound, and in order

to remain pure, Christian dogma had to engage with it in

more than one battle. Nevertheless, taking all in all, that

action was extremely beneficial. Christianity would never

have conquered the world nor become a universal religion,

had she not cast herself into the only form of thought that

could then and can still claim to be universal: the Hellenic

form. She would never have suppressed, from the religious

point of view, the distinction between Greeks and Barbarians,

Jews and Gentiles, had she remained Jewish in her ways, and

failed to acquire, by contact with Greek genius, a suppleness

by means of which she could reach all minds and souls.

The most important question is only to know in what meas-

ure early Christian doctrine was ultimately modified by its

alliance with Greek philosophy and culture, and whether or

not the very content of Revelation was not consequently al-

tered. In the new shape Theology gave them by using foreign

notions, did dogmas remain the doctrinal equivalent of the

Evangelic and Apostolic preaching they aimed at express-

ing: the equivalent, I say, without excluding the legiti-

mate developments the germs of which were contained in that5


preaching? Did Hellenism only supply the Fathers and

Councils^with incentives and moulds for their thoughts, and

with terms and formulas for their teaching, or did it reach

the very core of that teaching and introduce there notions

incompatible with it? In other words, do the Christians of

to-day believe in Jesus and Paul, or in Aristotle and Plato?

Are they Christians or Greeks? Such is the problem the

History of Dogmas has to solve: a problem though, of which

the solution by history alone, demands, as is evident, a great

amount of -delicate analysis and correct appreciation.

CHAPTER H

THE EARLY STATE OP CHRISTIAN DOGMA. PREACHINGOE JESUS CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES

1

WHATEVER influences may have later on affected the develop-ment of Christian doctrine, this development has, in any case,

started from the preaching of Jesus and the Apostles, which

is the true immediate source of Christian Dogma; there wewill find it in its early state and native shape.

The teaching of Jesus and the Apostles is made known1

to us

by the New Testament. This does not mean that we are sure

to have in the-New Testament writings all that teaching. Com-

posed as they were for edification and often for the occasion,

they do not pretend to expose in a didactic and complete man-ner the doctrine of the Master and His disciples. The first

and second generations of Christians may, nay must have

received, on certain points, indications that were not recorded

in our canonical books. Some words have been quoted as

coming from Our Lord, which these books did not relate.

Here and there, a few have been pointed out; but generally

1 This is what is improperly called the "Theology of the New Testament."G. B. STEVENS, Theology of the New Testament, p. 593, gives a list of the prin-

cipal complete works on this topic. The best known and most recent are those

of B. WEISS, Lehrluch d&r biblischen TheoL des 2V. T*., 5th ed., Berlin, 1888

(translated into English),- J. HOLTZMANN, Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. TheoL,

Leipsic, 1896; J. BOVON, Thfologie du Nouveau Testament, 2nd ed., Lausanne,1902 and ff.; G. B. STEVENS, Theol. of the N. T., New York, 1899. (And also

W. BEYSCHLAG, N&utestamentliche Theologie, 2nd ed., -Halle, 1895 trans-

lated into English.)

S8 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

they are too unimportant and also too scantily attested to

deserve to be taken into account. Practically, the New Testa-

ment alone can help us, in this volume, to reconstitute Christian

dogma in its early shape.

Here, however, a few distinctions become at once necessary.

For though antiquity placed on the same level of authority

the teachings of Jesus and those of the Apostles, and thoughthe latter seem to be but the echo and prolongation of the

former, still it cannot be denied that between the preaching

of Jesus and the end of the period strictly Apostolic, manyyears passed about two thirds of a century during which

the Master's doctrine must have been submitted to reflection

and may have received important developments. It has alwaysbeen admitted that the Apostles, as organs of the Holy Ghost,

mayhave added to the personal teaching of Jesus, complementsof a doctrinal or some other character, complements which

of course presupposed that teaching of the Lord as a first and

necessary basis, and perfectly harmonized with it.1 The

Evangelic Revelation came to an end only with the death

of the last Apostle, and if we wish, then, to give of its content

an exposition historically true, we ought to distinguish, as far

as we can, its successive strata, and not present, all at once

and in a confused manner, elements which are not equallyancient.

We may reckon five such strata: (i) The personal teachingof Jesus; (2) The teaching of the Apostles before St. Paul's

apostolic mission; (3) The teaching of St. Paul; (4) That of the

1 This remark is important; it goes to reassure those theologians who wouldbe reluctant to admit ist, that the Apostolic teaching was, on certain points,more complete and extensive than that of Jesus; 2nd, that into the record madeby the Synoptists of the teaching of Jesus, glosses and comments may have

crept, that were destined to explain and interpret it. These glosses had an

authority similar to that of the words they explained, and by extension maylegitimately have been given as the personal teaching of the Saviour.

PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 59

Apostles after St. Paul; (5) That of St. John: a division whichis easy to justify and, except as to the second and the fourth

part which in a summary like ours, may be joined together,

must be followed; and this is what we intend to do.

i. The Personal Teaching of Jesus according to the Synoptists.

It is in the Gospel that we find related the personal teachingof Jesus. The Synoptists have left us what its burden was,in a narrative which most probably reproduces closely its

primitive form. The fourth Gospel has perhaps preservedfor us some of its deeper revelations, and, in any hypothesis,has rather translated into another language than literally

recorded, the discourses of the Master. Still, these two sources

can, nay, must be used, if we wish to set forth an exact and

complete summary;1though we should avoid mingling their

1 Here two questions present themselves, which I cannot fully discuss, but

in which, however, I had practically to come to a decision. First, can the

speeches related by the fourth Gospel as being discourses of Jesus, be considered

as representing after all His preaching, and therefore can they be used when it

is question of exposing the Master's teaching? Cf. for the affirmative, J. BOVON,Theologie du Nouv, Test., 2nd ed., vol. H, pp. 162 ff.; F. GODET, Comment, sur

VEvang. de Saint Jean, 4th ed., Neuchatel, 1902, vol. I, pp. 138 ff. (English

transl., vol. I, pp. 126 ff.); BATUTOL, Six lemons sur les Evangttes, Paris, 1897,

pp. 125 ff.; STEVENS, The Theology of the New Test., p. 176. Secondly, even

in the Synoptists themselves, whilst acknowledging their substantial fidelity,

can we not separate and distinguish what comes really from the Saviour Him-self from what, under the influence of a development of Christian thought, a

development previous to their redaction, has been ascribed to Him? As a

matter of fact, several recent authors have tried to make such a separation.

But even supposing that this can be made and is legitimate (which should

not be peremptorily denied), we cannot attempt it here, and it would

not lead us, after all, to any result much conducive to our aim; since it is gen-

erally granted that the doctrine transmitted by the Synoptists is really the

doctrine of Jesus, except perhaps in a few details. Cf. on this topic, B. WEISS,Lehrbuch der biblisch. Tkeol., 10, u English transl., vol. I, pp. 48 fi. ;

LAGRANGE, Rewe Biblique, 1903, pp. 299, 300; ROSE, Etudes sur les

3nd ed., Paris, 1902 translated into English ,

testimony, for their respective tone and standpoint are so

different, that we would find it extremely difficult to blend

them into an harmonious whole.1

According to the Synoptists, the central idea of the teaching

of Jesus, an idea to which all that teaching can be reduced, is

that of the Kingdom of God. The word was known to the

Jews,2 and for many years they had been waiting for the thing

itself. John the Baptist had announced that the kingdom was

not far ( Matt., 32) : Jesus declares that with Him it has come

or at least has approached (fyffao-ev, Matt., i228).

What is this kingdom? The expression Ra<n,\eta rov Oeov,

used exclusively by St. Mark and St. Luke, is equivalent to

the expression Bao-^Xeta rcoz/ ovpavcov, of St. Matthew; but it

would be better translated by reign than by Kingdom of God,for IWtXeia originally designates the domination itself, the

right of direction, which one exercises, and only by derivation,

and secondarily, the domain in which that power is exercised

and the subjects it reaches.

We may remark at once that this reign of God, which will

be also, as we shall see later on, that of Jesus, is in no way to

be political or earthly. On this point Jesus corrects Jewish

thought and rejects the idea of a temporal domination, such

as His contemporaries expected it to be. To Caesar, the

things that are Caesar's; to God, the things that are God's

(Matt., 2215"22; Mark, i213-17

; Luke, 2o21'26). Christ is not

judge of human interests (Luke, i214): He has not come to

command, but to obey, and to give His life a ransom for

many (Matt., 2o28), to save what was perishing (Matt., i8u).

The spiritual character of the kingdom of God is also em-

phasized by the fact that Jesus opposes it, not to temporal

1 Besides the general works mentioned above, cf. the special literature in

SEVENS, p. 594, and BOVON, vol. I, p. 389, note i, and p. 402. note 3.

*Wisd., ioi- Ps. of Sol., if.

kingdoms, but to that of Satan. The Saviour's language in

reference to Angels and demons is generally in keeping withwhat we have seen was believed at that time. Angels are

creatures dwelling in Heaven, where they see God; to themcarnal pleasures are unknown (Matt., i810

; Mark, i225)-

Superior to men, but inferior to the Son whom they accompanyand serve and on whom they depend (Matt., 4

U,i627

,26s3

;

Mark, i332), they will be, on the day of judgment, the execu-

tors of divine justice (Matt., i349); until that time, several of

them are the Angels of little children (Matt., i810). Besides

these good Angels, there are bad ones: the devil and his angels

(Matt., 2541

) : these are spirits (Luke, io20), but unclean spirits

(Matt., is42;Luke n24

), some of which are more wicked than

others: they endeavour to lead men astray and, after beingdriven out, dwell in deserts, until they feel ready for another

invasion (Matt., I243"45; Luke, n24-26

). Jesus speaks to them,drives them away by His word (Matt., 832

; Mark, i25) and

grants to His disciples the power to do the same (Matt., io8).

He distinguishes sharply this expulsion of demons from the

miraculous cures of the sick that He performs and His dis-

ciples too will perform (Matt., io8; Luke, i3

32).

Now these spirits have a leader, o crarava?, the adversary,6 &a'/3oXo9, the slanderer, who represents all of them (Matt.,

i226; Mark, i4

15; Luke, io18), and seems to be identified by

Jesus with Beelzebub (Matt., I224-27; Luke, n18-19

). Satan

is the prince of a kingdom (Matt, i226; Luke, n18

), which

opposes itself directly to the kingdom of God. He is pre-

eminently the enemy, o ty0p<k (Luke, io19): he it is who sows

tares in the field of the good man of the house (Matt., i339

),

takes away the good seed from the souls in which it had fallen,

(Luke, 812), and strives to stagger the Apostles, the ministers

of the kingdom (Luke, 2231). Hence, between the devil and

his angels on one side, and the Saviour on the other, there is

a continual struggle, and Jesus gives precisely the fact that


He drives away demons as a proof that the kingdom of God

has come (Matt., i228; Luke, n20

).

If then the preaching of Jesus does not exclude the eschato-

logical idea of a reign of God by justice and truth in a renewed

world at the end of ages, still it does exclude the narrow and

human conception the Jews had thereof. The well-marked

character of the new kingdom is that of a spiritual kingdom.We may examine closely each one of its elements.

The ruler of this kingdom, of course, is God, since it is the

ftcuritefa rov Oeov (Matt., 6 9-10, is

43,2629

). Now, in the teaching

of Jesus, God is not only God, but He is also the Father: His

own Father (Matt., n17), the Father of His disciples (Matt.,

516 ' 45

,61' 4> 6

) and of all the subjects of the kingdom, whose

kindness extends even to the ungrateful and wicked (Matt.,

546

). Though this fatherhood of God was not unknown to

the Old Testament, still it assumes on the lips of Jesus a moreintimate and gentle meaning. But, besides God, the king-dom of Heaven admits of another king, Jesus Himself (Matt.,

2 ,-3i, 34, 4o. Luk^ 232> 3

). What is that king and what idea does

Jesus give us of His own person?He presents Himself as the Messias, 6%/WTo?: a title

which is bestowed on Him by others, and which, at least ontwo occasions-, He positively accepts (Matt,, i616 ' 17

; Mark,I4

61'62). This meaning is conveyed by all His conduct. He

knows very well that, in the opinion of the Jews, the kingdomof God must appear with the Messias (Mark, n 10

), and He de-

clares that with Himself, this kingdom has come (Matt., i228;

Luke, ii20). When John the Baptist sends to ask Him if Heis he that is to come, He answers simply by remarking that

He performs the signs announced by the Prophets for the

coming of the Messias (Matt., n3"6; Luke, 7

19"23; cf. Isaias,

356 ' 6

). That Jesus was conscious of being the Messias cannotbe doubted.

We find also in the Synoptists two other titles which express


that messiahship. First, the title of Son of Man which Jesusalmost always adopts to designate Himself: l a title equivalent,in His eyes, to that of Messias, and which, whilst it veils, as

it were, the idea of the temporal triumph connected with this

last appellation, emphasizes the common origin of the Saviour

and of men, His apparent weakness, His mission of suffering

and expiation: a condition necessary for His future glorifi-

cation.

Then the title of Son of God (6 vtfc roO 0eoO) . The messianic

meaning of this appellation is not doubtful, on the lips of the

Jews and the disciples (Matt, i433

,i616

?26 63

, 27*; Mark, i461

;

Luke, 2270), and probably too on the lips of the demons (Matt.,

829 ff'

; Luke, 43 6

) . Though Jesus Himself never assumed the

full title, still He accepted it (Matt., i616 '17,26s3- 64

; Mark,i4

61 ' 62; Luke, 227

) and according to the Synoptists twice

styled Himself "the Son," o wVfe (Matt, n27; Mark, i3

32; Luke,

lo22). However, He always called God His Father (Matt.,

ii25 ' 27; Mark, 838

; Luke, 23^'ff

') But now a question presents

itself. By this term, does Jesus intend merely to express His

messiahship, and designate a moral filiation, a special relation

of love existing between Himself and God, a filiation, in nature

similar, though in degree superior, to that which exists between

God and the disciples; or does He extend farther and higher

up the bearing of that appellation, and by ascribing it to Him-

self, does He claim for Himself a true divine filiation, in the

metaphysical sense of the term, viz., a nature superior to the

created essence?

For such a vast and momentous problem, the Synoptists

alone do not perhaps supply us with an adequate and absolute

solution. However, there are indications worthy of notice, to

the effect that if the preaching of Jesus, such as the first three

1 It is found thirty-one times in Matt., fifteen times in Mark, twenty-six

in Luke,


Evangelists expose it, did not contain the precise affirmation

of His divinity, still it did insinuate it and, so to speak, antici-

pated its full revelation. Thus, between the Son, who Hedaims to be, and men, He places the Angels (Mark, is

32);

in this relation of filiation which He lays down as existing

between the Father and Himself, He separates Himself from

His disciples and the rest of the world: He says "My Father "

and "Your Father," but not "Our Father;" He is the Son,

the natural heir of the lord of the vineyard (o fc^povo^o^,whilst the Prophets and the other messengers of God are mere

servants (Mark, I21'12); between Him and the Father, there

exists an absolutely unique and transcendent relation of

reciprocity and equality; nobody knows the Son but the

Father, and nobody knows the Father but the Son and those

to whom the Son has revealed Him (Matt., n27; Luke, io22

):

finally the enigma proposed by Jesus to the Pharisees about

the Messias, the son and yet the lord of David, cannot be solved

otherwise than by admitting that, according to Jesus, the

Messias must be of a nature superior to David's (Matt,, 2241"46;

Mark, is3*-37; Luke, 2O41'44

).

Jesus then proclaims Himself the Messias, the Son of God,the founder of the kingdom: whose mission it is to seek andsave what had perished (Luke, ip

10) and to give His life a ran-

som (XrJrpoz/) for many (Matt., 2o28; Mark, io45). He must

suffer a great deal, be rejected by priests and scribes, die andrise again (Mark, 881). He has a baptism, with which hemust be baptized (Luke, i2 50

). His blood is the blood of thenew Covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins

(Matt., 2628; Mark, I4

24; Luke, 2220

). Thus Jesus gives toHis death a meaning of salvation: it is the means of our re-

demption, the deed that works our deliverance.

Now, to this deliverance and to His kingdom, the Saviourcalls all men. Though His own ministry must confine itself

to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt., I524), yet, an opportunity


being given, He addresses others besides them (Matt., 8 5"13,

i528

), and though He declares that the evangelization must

begin with the Jews (Matt., io5 ' 6), He declares also that

many shall come from the East and West who shall sit downwith the Patriarchs in the kingdom of Heaven (Matt., 811

).

The disciples are the salt of the earth, the light of the world

(Matt., 513 ' 14

); the world is the field of the husbandman

(Matt., i338

) ;the Apostles must evangelize all nations (Matt.,

2819), all creatures (Mark, i615); the good news must be

spread all over the world, before the consummation, as a

testimony to all peoples (Matt., 2414

; Mark, i310) : Jesus is

for expansion.

Nevertheless, though all men are called to join the kingdomof God, they cannot enter it nor especially belong fully to it,

unless they fulfil some conditions. Of these, penance is one,

viz., the change of heart (pe-rdvoia, Matt., 417

; Mark, i15

; Luke,

532), because men are sinners (Matt., 612

; Luke, is1" 5

); faith

is another: we must believe the divine message (Mark, i 15,

i616; Luke, i88

) and be courageous enough to confess it (Mark,838

, 926

) ;the attachment to the person of Jesus must also be

reckoned, for He is not only a master who teaches, but also a

Mediator in whom we are saved (Matt., i>a

,io32

-39, 25

40 ' 45).

We must add fidelity to do the will of the heavenly Father

(Matt., y21

) , humility, a docility like that of little children whomwe must resemble (Matt., i83 ' 4

, ig15

; Mark, io14 ' 15;Luke, i816' 17

).

It is to the poor in spirit, the meek, those who weep, the merci-

ful, the pure, the pacific, the persecuted by the world for

justice7

sake, that the kingdom of Heaven belongs (Matt.,

5*-12); to the violent also, viz., to those who are energetic and

resolute, for it lets itself be conquered only after a hard strug-

gle (Matt., n 12). And finally, a condition that sums up all

the others, justice (ScfcaLoo-vvrj, Matt., 56 ' 20

), which comprises

in a general way the fulfilment of all duties in regard to God,the neighbor and oneself.


As to the Ancient Law, sometimes Jesus seems to give its

observance as obligatory, and maintain the whole of Mosaism

(Matt., s17-19 ' *' *

232 ' 3 > 23

, 2420

). However, it is clear that He

spiritualizes the fulfilment of the former and makes less strict

the interpretation of the latter (Matt., I2 1' 6 ' 8 ' 1(M3, 23

26; Luke,

i315 16

): and places the intimate dispositions of the soul and the

practice of virtues far above; external works (Matt., i2 7, 23

s3) :

and finally that He considers many points of that Law as out

of date and precarious. He does not accept some of the im-

purities it had decreed (Matt., is11 ' 17-20

); to the law of retali-

ation He opposes the precept of the forgiveness of injuries

(Matt., s38"41

), condemns divorce allowed by Moses (Matt.,

53i-32

? I9s-9. Mwk, lo2

-12), declares that with John the Baptist

the Law and the Prophets come to an end (Luke, i616), gives

Himself as greater than the Temple (Matt., i2 6) and announces

its destruction (Mark, i32) : a ruin which is sure to entail

many changes in ritual ceremonies.

For these ancient prescriptions Jesus substitutes in Christian

life, what was already in the Law, viz., the great command-ment of the love of God and men, a commandment which Hestrongly bids His contemporaries remember (Matt., 2237'40

).

The measure of charity is the sacrifices that it inspires us to

mate (Matt., 545 ' 46

; Luke, i4ia"14

), and this is why it oughtto prompt us to love, not only our brethren (Matt., S

22-24),

but also our enemies and persecutors, as the heavenly Fatherwho makes His sun shine upon the good and the bad (Matt.,

S44 ' 45

). It impels us to help them (Luke, io30-37

), to forgive them

(Matt., i821 > 22), to bear their wrongs (Matt., s

39), and to con-

descend to their most unreasonable requests (Matt., 540 '

^).On this condition, the children of the kingdom will be perfectas God Himself (Matt., 5

48).

We may add to this the exhortation to persevering prayer(Luke, iS1

), discreet insinuations on the superiority of celibacy

chastity (Matt., ip12

), the merit of voluntary povertv and

its necessity for perfection (Matt., ig21 ' 23

), the separationfrom family and kindred (Matt., ip

27-80; Luke, i4

26): thus

we have some idea though incomplete of the Ethics

preached by Jesus.

By practising it, one becomes a subject of God's kingdom,receives it (Mark, io15

) in a more or less complete way, accordingas it is more or less completely practised. For Jesus does not

consider the kingdom of God, only in its eschatological mean-

ing, as a state which will be established at the end of time;He proclaims that it is established even during this life in

the world (Luke, if20-21

) and in the heart of each believer in

particular. The word has, on His lips, at the same time an

eschatological, an actual and an individual or intimate mean-

ing. In the first sense and considered in its consummation, the

kingdom of God will include only the just (Matt., I343

, 2$u * 41

) ;

in the second sense and considered as existing upon earth, it

contains a mixture of good and bad, who are so in various

degrees (Matt., is19-30 ' 37~43 ' 47- 50

, 251'13 ' 31-46

); in the third sense,

only those receive it and have it in themselves, who fulfil its

conditions (Matt., is34).

This leads us to another question. These members of the

kingdom of God, whatever their interior state may be, shall

they live, in a religious point of view, isolated one from

another and joined to God alone, or form a society? Jesuswills them to form a society: the $a<n\eia TOV Oeov will be

an l/c/cXyo-ta (Matt., i618,i817

): whose nucleus is created by

Jesus, when He constitutes the Apostolic College. This

Church is set up immovable on Peter as its foundation. Tohim the keys of the kingdom are given: he binds and looses

upon earth, and his decisions are ratified in Heaven (Matt.,

i618> 19). A similar power is bestowed on the Apostles (Matt.,

i818); they will teach, baptize, and must be listened to, as

Jesus Himself (Matt., 2819; Luke, io16). This function of

teaching is quite compatible with moderation recommended to


masters and the obligation of serving, which is presented

as the fundamental duty of any one who has authority (Matt.,

238-10

,2026

-27)

The Apostles will baptize in the name of the Father and of

the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Matt., 2819); this baptism is

necessary for salvation (Mark, i616). Besides this rite, there

is the eucharistic meal. Jesus gives His Apostles His flesh

to eat and His blood to drink, and recommends them to repeat

it, in commemoration of Him (Matt., 262G~29; Mark, I4

22"24;

Luke, 2217-20

).

In no other part of the teaching of Jesus the Synoptists

alone being taken into account do we find a clearer presen-

tation of the person of the Holy Ghost, than in the formula

of Baptism. Except in the latter, this person is scarcely more

explicitly revealed than in the Old Testament (cf . however,

Matt, i232; Mark, i3

u; Luke, I210 ' 12

).

Such are, then, broadly sketched, the conditions of the

kingdom of God upon earth. But that kingdom itself is

only the preparation for a future and definite kingdom which

is to be established at the end of the world: a future towards

which the Jews, in the time of Our Lord, were looking with

a hope mixed with fear. What was His teaching on this

capital point?

Substantially it does not much differ from the doctrines

then current, if we subtract from these the idea of a temporaland temporary rule of the Messias and modify the material andnarrow character of such an idea.

Jesus admits, immediately after death, a retribution at

least provisional for the just and the wicked. In the parablecalled after him, Dives goes down to Hades, while Lazarusrests in Abraham's bosom (Luke, i619~31

). The former suffers

from fire and from a parching thirst, the latter is in the great-est joy. Between them there is an insurmountable abyss,

which, however, allows them to see and hear each other. As


to the paradise that Jesus promises to the penitent thief (Luke,

23), it does but signify the happiness of the future life.

But, while the Saviour is rather reticent as to the condition

of men immediately after death, He speaks out in regardto the fate of the world on the last day.The final catastrophe shall be preceded by foreboding

signs, the apx*) oWww (Matt., 24^ Mark, is7'13

; Luke, 21^ 19

); there shall be wars, plagues, famines, earthquakes; the

disciples shall be hated, persecuted, beaten and put to death.

Then the 0Xn/rt? jLce^aA,?^ the great tribulation shall come

(Matt., 2416-28

; Mark, is14*23

; Luke, si20"34); men shall see in

the holy place the abomination of desolation, the evils shall

be such as have never occurred since the beginning of the

world. Then the final crisis will break out (TO re\o9, Matt,,

2429-si.

Mark, is24-27

; Luke, 2i 25-28): the sun shall be dark-

ened, the moon shall not give her light, the stars shall fall

from Heaven, the powers of Heaven shall be moved, and

suddenly, as lightning (Matt., 2427

), the Son of Man shall

appear on the douds, full of glory and majesty (cj. Matt.,

26^; Mark, i462

; Luke, 22 69). He shall send His Angels with

trumpets to gather together, not only the just, but all nations

(Matt., 2S32). All the dead shall rise (cf. Matt., s

29 * 30,io28

,

2223-33. Mart?I2is-a7.

Luke, i414

,2o27

-40); and the judgment

shall begin, presided over by the Son of Man Himself

(Matt., 2532 ' 33

,i617); it shall reach every individual (Matt.,

i627,221'14

), and extend itself to all his works (Matt., 13*,

For it is according to his deeds that man is to be judged,

not according to his nationality or religious external appear-

ance (Matt., 25s4-45

, 721-27

,811 ' 12

; Luke, is2^30

). The sentence

shall be most consoling for the just. Like the Angels (Matt.,

2230; Mark, i226

; Luke, 2036) ; they shall live an everlasting

life (Matt., 2 s46

; Luke, 2O36) in the contemplation of God

(Matt., s8). Their state is compared to a wedding banquet

(Matt., 222-14, 2S

10)

. The elect are reclining on resting-couches,

with the Patriarchs (Matt., 811) or sitting on thrones (Matt.,

i928

; Luke, 2230); they shine as stars (Matt., is43). Still, their

felicity has a manifestly spiritual character. Here the capital

word is life everlasting (Matt., 2546

; Mark, io17; Luke, io24),

often used as the equivalent of a complete possession of God

(Matt., 2S34 ' 46

). In no passage is it implied that the expres-

sion "everlasting" must be understood in a broad sense: on

the contrary, Jesus positively declares that the just shall

never die (Luke, 2o36).

Quite different, indeed, is to be the fate of the wicked: it

shall be most terrible: it is the aTnwXeta opposed to life (Matt.,

713 ' 14

). Perhaps, judging from the word, we might think of

destruction: however, such is not the thought of Jesus. Thewicked driven away from Him (Matt., as

41; Luke, i3

27) shall

be cast down into Gehenna, <yeeWa (Matt., 522 29 ' 30

? Mark,

g42 ' 46

), into a Gehenna of fire (Matt., 522), into the everlasting

fire (Matt., 2541

; Mark, g42), at the same time, however, a place

of darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth

(Matt., 812, 25

30; Luke, i3

28). There, they shall suffer for ever;

their fire shall never be put out, nor their worm die (Matt.,

2541 46

;Mark,942 ' 47

).

What will be the relation of the punishment or the rewardto the works which have deserved it? The former will be pro-

portioned to the malice of each culprit, according to his dis-

position and knowledge (Matt., n22-24,i241 ' 42

; Luke, is47 ' 48),

for from him, who has received more, more shall be asked. Asto the latter, sometimes it is represented as equal for all andas a gift (Matt., 25

14-23,20M6) : other times too, as proportional

to merits (Luke, ig12" 19

) : a contradiction which can be solved,if we remark, on one hand, that the reward itself is so excel-

lent that it surpasses the demand of the merits and is truly

gratuitous (cf. Luke, 638), and, on the other hand, that byreason of its very excellence, all slight distinctions between

merit and merit seem to fade before it. These distinctions,

however, do not altogether disappear, and among the sub-

jects of the kingdom of Heaven, there will be an order (Matt.,

S19)-

There remains the question of the day and hour when the

world is to come to an end. Everyone knows how difficult

it is to draw from the Synoptists a clear idea of the Master's

teaching .on this topic. As we have seen, the contemporariesconnected the eschatological crisis with the coming of the

Messias, and it is quite true that, for a while, the disciples and

early Christians were expecting, as if in the near future, the

second advent (the "parousia") of the Messias. As to the

Saviour Himself, sometimes He seems to announce it as if

near at hand (Matt., lo23,i627 ' 28

, 2434

; ''Mark, 839, i3

80; Luke,

926 ' 27

,2 1

32) ;

at other times, on the contrary, He seems to placeit far away in the future: such is the meaning of some parables

(Matt., i381 ' 32

, 244*" 60

, 255-14

) and sometimes too of the direct

speech; the end shall come only when the Gospel has been

preached in the whole world (Matt., 2414

; Mark, i310

). To

explain these contradictions, scholars have set forth various

hypotheses we have not to discuss.1 What is dear, is that

Jesus was not willing to make His Apostles nor us acquaintedwith the moment of His "parousia" (Matt., 24

36; Mark,

i332). He announced only that it would surprise us (Luke,

I240) and therefore we ought to watch: Vigilate (Matt.,

2442 '

<*, 2513;Luke, i237-40

).

i The best theory is perhaps that which sees in the kingdom of God, a com-

plex idea, designating at the same time an era ofjustice and an era of happi-ness. As an era of justice, the kingdom of God was in fact announced byJesus as near at hand and as having come with Him; as an era of happiness,

it was to appear hi its fulness only after many centuries: a distinction which

at first was not clearly realized by the early Christians, though gradually andafterwards experience was to bring it home to them.


2. The Teaching of Jesus according to St. John.

Let tis now open the fourth Gospel. The notion and the

term of the kingdom of God are not absent from it (33 > 5

), but

they are found there quite seldom, and it is another concept,

another terminology which presents itself to us. The kingdomof God is replaced by the life, the eternal life which is broughtto us. In the Synoptists Jesus has spoken chiefly of His min-

istry and of us; here, He tells us a great deal about Himself

and His relations to the Father; in the Synoptists, He had so

little emphasized the idea of His mediation, that, accordingto some, it cannot be found in these Gospels; here, we find it

at every step; and finally the doctrine of the Holy Ghost sud-

denly assumes a considerable development, while the escha-

tological drama disappears before a more intimate and spiritual

conception of the divine judgment." God is spirit, and they that adore him must adore Ham in

spirit and in truth" (424). These words do away with Jewish

particularism, and already insinuate the direction of the new

teaching." God so loved the world as to give His only begotten

Son that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish but mayhave life everlasting" (3

16). The love of God for men is in

some way or other more intense and personal than what wehave found so far. God is a Father, but above all the Father

of Jesus, and it is by sacrificing the latter, that He shows Heis our father also.

For if, in the Synoptists, Jesus in fact separates Himselffrom His disciples in His relations with the Father, such anattitude of His is far more striking in St. John. He declares

Himself the Son of God (528

, 935-37

, etc.), the Son by way of

eminence fo16 ' 35

, s19" 22

, etc.); there is, in distinction from every-

thing else, the Father and the Son (s35 ' 36

, 519"22

). Between this

Father and this Son the relations are intimate: the Father is

the source of the Son's being and action (519 > 26

) ; He works in


the Son; the Father and the Son know (io15

;cf. 855

) and love

each other (s20

, i431

, is9); they remain one in the other (8

29,

i410 n

), they are but one, ei> (io30

, i?11 ' a > 22

). What belongsto one belongs to the other also (iy

10), and, as the Father has

life in Himself, He has given to the Son to possess life likewise

(525). Hence, to behold or reject the Son, is to behold or reject

the Father (819

, 14, is21'24

); to both a like honor is to be

paid (;).The Son existed before He appeared in the world: Jesus

was before Abraham (858

), He was glorified with the Father

before the world was in existence (i75) : from Heaven He comes

and to Heaven He goes back (662

,cf. 6s3 ' 51

), for the Father,

who is greater than He (i428), has sent Him into the world

(316) there to fulfil a mission (s

36, i4

31, is

10, ff.), to speak, to

judge, to act in His own name also (826

,io32> 37

).

Yet, the proper object of the mission of Jesus is not to judgethe world, but to save it (3

17;cf. 4^), to give it everlasting life:

this idea is expressed again and again (316 ' 36

, 414

, ff.). Jesusis the life (i4

6), and He comes to communicate it abundantly

to us (io10

). He is also the light, and He comes to enlighten

the world (319

,812

,i246

), that it may know God, for to knowGod and His Son, Jesus, is life everlasting (i7

2 ' 3). To that

office of teaching is added an office of suffering, dimly an-

nounced. Jesus is to give His flesh for the life of the world

(651) : He is the good shepherd who dies for his flock (io

11 ' 1S) :

such is the Father's command (io18).

How shall we receive that light, partake of that life, profit

by that redemption, which are offered us ? By attachingourselves to the person of Jesus, by becoming one with Him.

As Jesus is united with the Father, so also we must be united

with Jesus to be united with God: this is the whole economyof salvation. He is the light that leads to life (8

12,i246), the

gate of the sheepfold through which all have to enter (io7 ' 9

),

the good shepherd whose sheep we ought to be (ioU) 14

), nay,


the vine whose branches we are, from which alone we can get

supernatural sap, and in which alone we can bear fruit

(I51- 7

). Hence for us the necessity to abide in His love, as Heabides in the love of His Father (is

7"10). After this, the other

conditions of salvation are nearly those which we find in the

Synoptists : to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost

(3s- 7

), to believe the Saviour's words (s16

, s24

,64(M7), to eat His

flesh and drink His blood (652 59

).

Similar also is the idea given us of the Church and her

organization (i320

, i718

,2023

,2i 15-17

); but a doctrine which is

most strongly set forth on this occasion is that of the HolyGhost. He is sharply distinguished from the Father and the

Son (i416f26

,i67>13"15

): He proceeds (e/tTropeverai) from the

former (is26), but He receives (Kappdvei) from the latter

(i614f 15

) what He shall say and announce to the Apostles

(i613> 14

, i426); and this, because everything that is the Father's

is the Son's also (i615)- Both send Him (i4

16 ' 26, is

26,i67

);

yet, He is not separated from them, for the Father and the

Son accompany Him in His descent into the faithful (I423).

He is the Spirit of truth (i416 > 17

, is26

, ft.), whose part is to

render testimony to Jesus, viz., to confirm interiorly His

teaching (is26

), to make it fully realized by the Apostles, andif need be, to explain it Himself (is

20,i613

). With these

Apostles He is to stay forever (i416> n

) : on the contrary, the

world cannot receive Him (i417

), and He witnesses againstthe world (I6**

31), for that world, to which Jesus is a stranger

(S23

,i836), hates Jesus and His Church (is

18-23), and the Saviour

did not pray for it (i79

).

For, as a matter of fact, though all men are, in principle,called to become the children of God (io

16, ii 52

,is32

), all donot answer the call. That unfaithfulness had been foretold

(i237"40

): it is the consequence of a divine plan, fpr nobodycomes to Jesus unless he is drawn by the Father (6

44), and

the latter has given to the Son only a certain number of men


(i76); it is the consequence also of human perversity. Men

repel light, because they are determined to do evil (s19"21

),

to follow their own will and trust in themselves (717"18

, 941).

From this rejection of light, the judgment follows. TheSaviour preserves the original meaning of this word; it is a

sorting, a separation: "This is the judgment: because the light

is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than

the light: for their works were evil (s19)." Thus, the judg-

ment begins as soon as one refuses to receive Jesus. He whodoes not believe is already judged by his very incredulity (3

18) :

he does not need any external judge; his obduracy and the

words he despised will suffice to show most conspicuously in

the last day the state of separation in which he has placed him-

self (i248

). According to this meaning, he who believes is not

judged (s18

, s24). And thus it is true that Jesus has not come

to judge (317

,i247

;cf. 815

), because the wicked themselves are

their own judges and separate themselves; on the other hand,it is true that He has come to judge, because His corning has

been the occasion of the gifting of those who are willing, from

those who are unwilling, to see (g39

)

This first judgment, internal and hidden, does not exclude

another judgment, general and public, which is to take place

at the end of the world and be presided over by the Son. AtHis voice, all shall arise, the good, unto life; the wicked, unto

judgment (s28 ' 29

). That resurrection of the just seems to be

ascribed specially to the influence of Jesus (639 ' 40 ' 44

), whose

flesh and blood they have received (654). As to the fate of

these and of those, it will be after all but the developmenttasted and felt of what existed already here below: for the

just, the blooming of the life they possessed as a consequenceof their union with Christ (6

47, i4

3) ;

for the wicked, death and

God's wrath always standing against them (s36

; cf. S24).

Though, as it is easy to see from what has just been said,

there is a sensible difference between the tone of the fpurth


Gospel and that of the Synoptists, still, we could not find

between them an oppositioiustrictly so called. Sometimes there

is prolongation of the lines, other times, too, transposition

or diversity, but never contradiction. Under the name of

life everlasting, the kingdom of God has become somethingmore intimate and personal;' likewise, the judgment is not a

merely future event, it begins within the conscience. Onthe other hand, the relations of nature between the Son andthe Father, His divinity and character of necessary mediator,the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, are presented in bolder relief.

All this is no departure from the frame of the Master's thoughtsand must be regarded as its echo or faithful interpretation.

3. The Teaching of St Paul.*

Between Jesus and St. Paid, whose first Epistle to the

Thessalonians, the most ancient, according to a certain numberof scholars, of all those we possess, was written about the year

53, more than twenty years passed, during which the Apostles

preached, even perhaps some of them may have written.

Later on we shall group together all that concerns their teach-

ing, and now present that of St. Paul.

We find it, of course, in his Epistles2 and in some discourses

recorded in the Acts. Scholars agree in regarding that teachingas an organic whole, which expands itself under the Apostle's

pen, if not in an externally methodical order, at least accordingto a principle rigorously followed. But what is that principle?Here the controversy begins. In his system of Christianity,does St. Paul start with the idea he forms to himself of God,

1 Besides the general works above referred to, cf. the special literature onthis topic in STEVENS, Theol of the N. T., p. 594; JACQUEER, Histoire des Ivoresdu Nouveau Testament, vol. I, passim translated into English, in the Inter-national Catholic Library, 1906 .

3 We will treat by itself the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, though it repro-duces St. Paul's doctrine, is not generally ascribed to him as its immediateauthor.

TEACHING OF ST. PAUL 77

of Christ or of man? Is his doctrine theocentric, Christo-

centric or anthropocentric? All these various solutions havebeen proposed, and this, notwithout some appearance of reason.

The power of realization in the Apostle is so strong and syn-thetic that, whatever point he actually takes up and considers,

he knows how to reduce to it all his teaching and thus make it

appear at if it were truly the centre of his thoughts. Still,

this question has for us only a secondary importance, andwhat we have to show is chiefly the way in which St. Paul's

doctrine develops that of Jesus. We are more interested in its

objective side than in the manner in which it was conceived,and therefore we have not precisely to study how it was sub-

jectively deduced. A summary, which, starting with God,follows His action in the world and gradually presents the

history of humanity, seems well enough to depict the move-ment of the Apostle's thoughts and be fitted briefly to express

their content.

According to St. Paul, as according to Jesus, God is a Father:

He was so already by creation: He becomes still more so byredemption. The word Abba, Father, comes spontaneouslyto our lips under the action of the Son's Spirit, that is granted

to us (R., 815 ' 29; G., 4

5 ' 6; E., i

4 ' 6). But at the same time,

that God is a sovereign whose absolute dominion is fully and

inflexibly affirmed. He is the God of Job against whom to

argue is perfectly useless; His will is law and our law; we must

bow and adore (R., 9^21

;i Tim., i17

,615 ' 16

).

Only one purpose preoccupies that will, as soon as it goes

out of itself and begins to act outside: to prepare the sal-

vation of the Elect: this is a design of love. Creation and

redemption shall be only successive means of fulfilling it (R.,

828 ; E., i4 ' 5

, s11

;2 Tim., i 9

). Creation is a first revelation of

God (R., i20); Incarnation is a second. Thus St. Paul points

out the unity of history and will maintain it, notwithstanding

the opposition between the Gospel and the Law.

When lie came forth from the hands of God, man was good.

The close relation between the flesh and sin, a relation which

will be emphasized by the Apostle, is not an essential and

absolute relation. The flesh is not necessarily evil; it is bythe first man's transgression (Trapd'jrrco^a) that sin, evil, has

come into the world (R., 512"19

) . This sin St. Paul personifies in

some way, and presents as an objective and living reality. Anew power (97 apaprCa) appears,which generation propagates in

the children of Adam according to the flesh (R., s12 ' 18 > 19

), and

which is not the sinful act, the transgression itself (irapajSaa-is,

TrapdTTT&fiia) (R., 514 ' 15

,2s3

; G., 61); it is its consequence and,

at the same time, the principle, that leads to it, the bent that

inclines towards it: in one word, it is concupiscence. Sin dwells

in man over whom it exercises an invincible tyranny (R., 7*'

8,i5,i9,20) and for wtom it is aa inevitable law (R., 7*'*);man is the slave of sin (Treirpa/jLevo? VTTQ rrjv apapricLV, R., 7

14).

Sin is seated immediately in the flesh (<rdp%). By the flesh,

is not to be understood the body (crS^a), but the substance

of the body, in as much as it is the principle of those tenden-

cies which incline us to evil, or those tendencies themselves,the whole man, the soul in so far as it follows them and acts

in keeping with them in its moral life. And thus St. Paul

tells us of a wisdom, will and spirit of the flesh, of carnal man($p6vqp,a, 0e\rjiJLa, z/ofc TT}? capfco?, R., 8 6

, 715

; E., 28; Col, 218).

That flesh is a flesh of sin, the body, a body of sin (R., 66, 8*).

Sin has for its fruit death, which it has introduced into the

world (R., 5*. M.iB.:w6*).

Such, then, is the state in which man has been placed byAdam's transgression: he has been made a sinner, corruptedin his nature and led to death. In these straits, what resources

are left him? None. Of course, his mind still sees the good,the duty, and what St. Paul calls the inward man likes it and

delights in it, but with a will altogether too weak to do it (R.,

715-22

). The Law itself will be of no help to him, nay, it will


become an occasion of ruin, for though the Law is in itself just,

holy and spiritual (nveuiLarueis), though it expresses the milof God (R., 7

12 ' 14), yet man is carnal (o-a/>/w/eo9, R., 7

14), -and

by showing him his duty without giving him the power to

fulfil it, the Law does but make him more guilty. Were it

not for the Law, sin was no more, it was not known as such

nor imputed (R., 320

, 513

, 77 ' 8

): because of the presence of the

Law, it revives, is multipled and shoots forth in every direction

its deadly scions (R., 79 ' u> 13

) : so that the part of the Law has

been, as it were, to render iniquity abundant, in order that sin

might be exhausted by its very fecundity (R., 520

; G., 319);

but in doing this, it has killed man who had become, for his

transgressions, amenable to punishment (R., 6U; G., 3

10).

Thus, whether he was a Jew or a pagan, whether he lived

under the natural law alone or under the Mosaic law, manwas lost save for the divine intervention. Happily for him,here is another power which rises against sin: Divine justice

(fj SucaioGvvr) 0eov, R., 321 ' 22

), not indeed that attribute which

judges and chastises, but the sanctity of God, His exemptionfrom any moral spot and stain, a justice which He imparts to

others and by which He makes just those who believe in Jesus

(e/9 TO elvai avrov M/caiov, ical Si/ccuovvra rbv etc TTWTTCG)? 'I

.

That justice of God, thus anxious, as it were, to communi-

cate itself, sets grace in motion, viz., the kindness and tender-

ness of God towards us (R., s20 ' 21

)> a kindness whose eternal

purpose is our salvation and that of all men (E., i4

; i Tini,,

23>4), and the first token it gives us of its sympathy for us is

the promise.

For, as a matter of fact, the promise of the Messias made

to Abraham was in the past the real help granted to man. It

was not Moses and his Law, which, as we have seen, became

only an occasion of sin, that are the true anticipation of Jesus

and His Grace, but Abraham and the promise He received

8o THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

(G., 36"18

). The true faithful, the true Israelites, are not the

Jews according to the flesh, viz., the subjects of the Law, but

rather those who believe, with Abraham, in the promise, and

inherit his faith (R., Q6" 8

; G., 428

). However, just as the child

is treated as a servant until his emancipation, though he is,

in principle, the lord of his estate, so also the spiritual children

of Abraham have been placed under the Law until the Gospel

would bring to them freedom and the use of their rights as

sons (G., 329

, 41' 7 ' ^31

)

This setting free will be the work of Jesus. He appearsas the second and supreme manifestation of God's kindness

towards us, the true object of the promise (G., 316

). He is

of our race and blood (R., i3

; G., 44), since He is to represent

us and take our place. Still, though He is a man and assumed

flesh, He has not known sin (R., 83;2 Cor., 5

21). Moreover, as

a man, He possesses a rank of His own: He is the second Adam,the new man. The first, who was from earth, was earthly (e/c

77)5 %o/eo9) : the second is from Heaven and therefore heavenly

(eVot^aVw) ; and, as our birth made us, like Adam, xoiicoC,

so our spiritual birth in Christ makes us, like Him, eTrovpdviot,

(i Cor., i547"49

). These expressions, etrovpavios, ef ovpavov,

probably refer to the Saviour's origin. But St. Paul's concept

goes much higher still. He dearly implies the pre-eristenceof Jesus (G., 4

4;2 Cor., 8 9

) and ascribes to Him a part in the

creation (CoL, i1&-17

;i Cor., 8 6

). Jesus is not only the Sonof God as the just of the Old Law were; He is the properSon of God (T&09, R., 832), the Lord (/efyw), the only Lordas the Father is the only God (i Cor., 8 6

); His name must beinvoked and before Him every knee should bow (i Cor., i

2;

Ph., 29" 11

); Paul does not hesitate to apply to Him the texts of

the Old Testament, written of God Himself (R., jo11'13;i Cor.,

io9;E.

, 48) . Finally, the Apostle's doctrine reaches its ultimate

expression in the well known passage of the Epistle to the

PMlippians (2:7), which proclaims Jesus preexisting ev

Oeov, and equal to God (foa 6e). Nor can it be conclusively

proved that the 0eo'<? of the Epistle to the Romans (g6) does not

refer to Jesus, and if it be objected that, anyhow, the Apostlesubordinates Christ to the Father (i Cor., is

28,n3

), it can

be easily answered that such a subordination is only one of

ministry, not of essence, and that precisely in the passage of

i Cor., ii3,the parallelism between man and woman, on one

side, and God and Christ, on the other, is preserved only if

between these there is identity of nature.

For St. Paul, then, Jesus is at the same time really man, and,in the absolute sense of the word, true Son of God. His partis to save us, or rather to be, in the hands of God, the instru-

ment of our salvation, for it is God who is, in Christ, reconcilingthe world unto Himself (2 Cor., 5

19): for this purpose, Jesus

becomes our representative and takes our place. Thoughbeing Himself without sin, He was made sin for our sakes, that,

dying with Him and in Him, we may become in Him the

justice of God (R., 6 6 > 8;2 Cor., 5

14 > 15 >

*). Since He represents

us, He is our victim: His death is the price of our ransom, a

means of propitiation (T^M), fXaor^/Moz/), in which we partake,

being included in Him (R., 326

,6 6

;i Cor., 620 ; G., s

13; E., i

7).

Yet, grace and redemption are, in principle and on the partof God, spontaneous and gratuitous, since the Incarnation and

the death of Jesus are themselves, the greatest of all graces

(R, S8

; E., i3- 6

,24- 7

).

The death of Jesus is, then, the keystone of the whole workof restoration, and we may understand why St. Paul wishes

to know but Jesus crucified (i Cor., 22). Sin, crucified in Jesus,

dies also in us, since we were included in Jesus (R., 6*-15

). This

is the negative part of justification; the positive part nowunfolds itself. As we are dead to sin with Jesus and in Jesus,

so with Him and in Him we rise to a new life (R., 64 ' 5> 8' u

,

426). The second Adam is a vivifying spirit (i Cor., is

45;2

Cor., 317); and just as the first Adam had communicated to us


sin and death, so likewise the second communicates to us His

justice and life (R., s15-21

;G.

;22(>

), viz., that justice and sanctity

of God which He possessed and of which the new life He as-

sumed on rising from the grave is the symbol (R., 64"11, 4

25).

How is this communication effected? Natural generation,

as we have seen, transmits the sin of Adam to his descendants;

Baptism and faith transfuse into us the life of Jesus. Through

Baptism, we are buried with Jesus unto death: we die to sin

and then we rise with Him (R.,63- 8

;cf. E.,2

5- 6; G., 3

27). Through

faith, which incorporates us into Jesus, we are made partakers

of His justice and merits (R., s22"25

, g30-33

; G., 216 ' 20, 3

2 ' 5-12 >

23-27). We may remark that this faith is no mere adhesion of

the mind: according to St. Paul, it implies the complete sur-

render to God of man, of his activity and heart (R. ?i5,616 ' 17

,

io10 ' 16 ' 17; G., 220

;i Th., 212-13

). It does not exclude all works

in general, but only those from which faith is absent and which

some might be tempted to consider the principle of justifica-

tion and salvation (R., g31 ' 32

; G., 216, 3

25,10-12).

Sin had in the flesh its root and seat; the new life broughtto us by redemption has the Spirit (Trvevpa) for its principleand seat. Besides the general sense, in which we oppose it to

flesh, sin, exaggerated legalism, the word "Spirit" presents, in

St. Paul, shades of meaning, which it is sometimes difficult to

seize. Thus, in some cases, it seems to designate the soul or

man himself, in as much as he is under the influence of God's

Spirit and aspires to heavenly things. (R., 84"10

; G., s16

; cf.

i Cor., 214 ' 15). More often, it designates the Spirit of God

working in man: this Spirit is the source of grace and of the

charisms (i Cor., I23"11); He dwells in our bodies and makes

them sacred (i Cor., 316

,619

) ; one day, He will raise them fromthe grave (R., 811

) ;He works also, nay, chiefly, in the soul, by

imparting to it a new life and being for it a God-given tokenof its divine sonship (R., 814"16

;2 Cor., i

22, s

5; G., 4). More-

over, there are several passages in which, evidently, the Spirit


is not regarded as an operation of God in general, but as a de-

termined person, the person of the Holy Ghost. He helps our

weakness, prays in us (R., 826>*

27) ?

and bears witness that weare the children of God (R., 816

). He is in God whose secrets

He knows (i Cor., 2U); He is also in us who become His tem-

ples (i Cor., 316

,619

). He is distinguished from the Father

and from the Son (R,, 811), being at the same time the Spirit of

God and of Christ (R., 8 9), sent by the former and belonging

to the latter (G., 46). And thus, without giving an explicit

presentation of doctrine on the Trinity, St. Paul always sup-

poses that, in the minds of his readers, these names of Father,

Son, and Spirit, stand for three divine terms whose relations

he does not accurately define, but which he joins together into

a formula of blessing, that may be called Trinitarian (2 Cor.,

I313)-

Not all men receive the Spirit nor obey the Gospel (R.,

io16): there are enemies of the cross of Jesus, whose end is

ruin (Ph., 318"19

). This is the mystery of predestination,

which St. Paul resolutely considers and the two elements of

which he strongly maintains: on one hand, the sovereign in-

dependence of God who saves whom He wills, and, ultimately

because He wills (R., 914> 29

); on the other hand, the freedom

of man who is lost only through his fault and incredulity (R.,

930-33

,io14r21

). The mystery itself Paul does not explain, nor

does he feel the need to explain it, since God's glory- is mani-

fested just as well by the loss of some as by the salvation of

others (R., Q^23).

As to the faithful who receive the Gospel and share in the

life of the Spirit, they make up the Church. Christians beingthe members of Jesus, the Church is His body, a body of

which He is the head (R., 12*'5

;i Cor., is27

; R, i 22 '

, 5*;

Col., i18

,219

), maintaining its unity and developing its

organs (E., 415 ' 16

). In her turn, she is the complement and

perfecting of Jesus, His pleroma (TrX^pw/wt, E., i23). The-


Spirit of truth, that abides in her, renders her the pillar of

truth (i Tim., 315

) ;He distributes in her ministries and func-

tions (i Cor., I24" 11 ' 28-31

): though all those ministries come

from one and the same Spirit in whom we were baptized and

who unites us all in Himself (i Cor., i2 13).

In this universal Church, however, St. Paul distinguishes,

chiefly in his Pastoral Epistles, particular communities, which

he calls also churches, and, among the members of those

churches, overseers (eTrfofcoTroi) and deacons (Phil., i1), of

whom he demands certain virtues (i Tim., 31"13

). He speaks

too of presbyters who preside (i Tim., s17 ' 19

), and whom he

identifies, partly at least, with the overseers (Tit., i5" 9

); there

ought to be, in every city, some presbyters whose mission it is

to exhort, preach the sound doctrine and rebuke the gain-

sayers (Tit., i 5 ' 9;

i Tim., 517). A certain number of those

presbyters, if not all, are then, at the same time, teachers

(SLSdcrfca\ot) ,and the functions of which we have just spoken

cannot be altogether distinct from those St. Paul enumerates

in the Epistle to the Ephesians, 411

.

" He (Jesus) gave some,

apostles, and some, prophets, and other some, evangelists, and

other some, pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints,

etc." Sometimes presbyters are united in one body, the

presbyterium, which imposes hands that certain offices may be

conferred (i Tim., 414). At the same time, the Apostle warns

Timothy to preserve pure the deposit of truths he has en-

trusted to him (i Tim., 620;

2 Tim., i13 ' 14

) and to choose

faithful co-laborers who may teach those truths to others

(2 Tim., 22). He claims for himself and also for Timothy and

Titus the right of judging and condemning in matters of faith

and discipline (i Tim., i19, 5

19 > 20,6*-

5;

2 Tim., 216"19

, 4M

; Tit.,

310 '

*; i Cor., 5*-*).

Among the rites that are performed in Christian meetings,St. Paul mentions, besides Baptism, the Lord's Supper, the

institution of which he relates almost in the same terms

TEACHING OF ST. PAUL $5

as the third Gospel (i Cor., n20-34). The Eucharist is the body

and blood of Jesus: it represents His death, and he who re-

ceives it unworthily eats and drinks his judgment. In an-

other passage (i Cor., lo16-21

), that same rite is placed side byside with the eating of meats offered to idols: thus, its re-

lation to the sacrifice of the Cross, which had been already

pointed out (i Cor., n25 ' 26), is set forth more vividly.

Marriage is the symbol of the union of Jesus with His

Church. The wife is the body of her husband, as the Church

is the body of Jesus (E., 526"32

) . Hence marriage cannot be dis-

solved: such is the Lord's command (i Cor., 710 ' n

); death

alone shall break it (R., f'3

;i Cor., 7

39). The only exception

to be made is in behalf of the believing party with whom the

unbelieving refuses to dwell (i Cor., y12'16

). As to continence

and virginity, Paul, following on his Master's footsteps, does

not impose it: still, he does advise it, merely as preferable to

the state of marriage, when one is called by God to it (i Cor.,

77 > 25-38

). Likewise, the state of widowhood is to be preferred

to a second marriage, though the latter is allowed (i Cor.,-39-40N

However, all through this teaching, we see now and then

passing and repassing that anxious care about the judgmentand the end of things, which the preaching of Jesus had so

strongly inculcated: Paul, too, had preached the kingdom of

God (Acts, ig9

,2o25

,2831) and he knew well that this kingdom

would receive its completion only with the second coming of

Christ. When would that consummation take place? Ex-

pressing on this point the current notion of the time, the

Apostle described it, in his first letters, as near at hand (i Th.,

414-16

;cf. 2 Th., 22

- 5): "The time is short," he exclaims, "we

must use this world, as if we used it not, for its figure passes

away" (i Cor., f29-31

). Still, at the same time he repeats that

before the final parousia, the man of sin shall be revealed, the

man of perdition (o avOpcoTros 7-7)9 az>o/ua9, 6 vlo$ 7^9


who shall rise against God and His dominion. Now, the mys-

tery of iniquity is already going on; however, the Antichrist is

not yet allowed full play; there is a power (o Kare^v) that

restrains him until it disappears and leaves him free in his

course of action (2 Th., 23~u

). Thus, as he advances in his

career, the Apostle's thought becomes more distinct and com-

plete. Instead of casting his eyes directly on the end of time,

he turns them to the end of each individual and to his own.

Though the fear of being deprived of our bodies, and found

naked, disturbs us, still we should accept our destiny, since

we are thus reunited to the Lord (2 Cor., s1- 8

). As to himself,

he knows, when he writes his second letter to Timothy, that

his dissolution is not far distant (2 Tim., 46> 7

), but this death

shall be for him a gain, since it will place him with Christ

(Ph., i 21-23). St. Paul then believes that, immediately after

this life, he will enjoy the sight and company of the Saviour,

and he extends such a hope to all the faithful (2 Cor., s1" 8

).

Though, even then, he has not dismissed from his mind that

end of time, the precise epoch of which he does not dare to

point out, while he knows its circumstances, from the oral

Evangelical teaching and from Jewish tradition. As he said

already, the advent of Christ shall be preceded by the rise of

a son of perdition, who shall seduce the nations, and, as far as

he can, substitute himself for God (2 Th., 23"11

). Then, in his

turn, the Lord shall come down from heaven, at the voice of

the Archangel and the sound of the trumpet (i Th., 415

,i10).

Antichrist shall be exterminated (2 Th., 2 8); the dead shall

rise again. From the principles of the Apostle, it would seemthat such a resurrection should be reserved to the just, as it

is the fruit of redemption (i Cor., I521-23

) and the consequenceof the indwelling of the Holy Ghost within their souls (R.,8U

;cf. i Cor., is

23; Ph., 3"; i Th., 4

14-16)- Still, St. Paul

extends it to all, just and sinners (Acts, 2415

;2 Cor., s

10;

cf.

i Cor., is21'22

), with this difference, however, that in the former,


it shall be accompanied by a transfiguration and transforma-

tion of their bodies (i Cor., is35-54

). The last judgment shall

follow. It shall be presided over by Jesus (2 Cor., 510

;2 Tim,.,

41), though it is the judgment of God, of God judging through

Christ (R., 2 5 ' 6 16). The faithful also shall sit as judges (i Cor.,

62> 3), although they are to be judged, like the rest of men

(Acts, i;31

;2 Cor., 5

10) and the Angels (i Cor., 63

). The sen-

tence of that tribunal will render to every one according to his

works, according to his guilt or his merit (R., 2 5-13). For, as

a matter of fact, the Apostle clearly supposes, in the just, a

merit properly so called, though he knows well that this merit

is, at the same time, a gift of Heaven (R., n35; Ph., 213). Be-

sides the transfiguration of their bodies, the just, then, will

receive, for their fidelity, a share in the glory of God's chil-

dren (R., 52

,830): their filiation will be manifestly shown (R.,

819;

cf. Col., 34). Reunited with Jesus, they shall inherit with

Him the kingdom of the Father (R., 817) and possess eternal

life (R., 2 7, s

21; G., 68

, etc.). St. Paul here pursues his parallel:

dead with Jesus, risen with Him, the just are glorified with

Him and partake of His supreme power. As to the destiny of

the wicked, it will be a destiny of wrath, sorrow and anxiety,

death and destruction (R., 25 ' * 9

,621

;i Th., i

10; Ph., 3

19):

they shall be assailed by the Lord and His power with an

avenging fire (2 Th., i7' 9

). Their torments, as well as the hap-

piness of the just, shall be everlasting (R., 27, s

21, 6**; i Cor.,

925

; G., 628;

i Th., 46

;i Tim., i

16,612

; Tit., i2). In vain

have some sought in St. Paul for the idea of a final restoration;

it is not there.

There remains the last act of that supreme tragedy. Death,the last adversary of Jesus, has been destroyed by the resur-

rection (i Cor., i526> 54 ' 55

). Having accomplished His work

and conquered all His enemies, Christ, in His turn, hands over

His kingdom and royalty to His Father and submits Himself

to Him: God is all in all (i Cor.,

7


From this mere summary it is easy to realize what devel-

opments the teaching of Jesus received at the hands of St.

Paul. It is evidently to the anthropological and soteriological

part of this teaching, to the part of Christ in the work of re-

demption that the Apostle turned his attention. He has

strongly set forth, by a keen analysis of human corruption, the

universal character of sin and the absolute necessity of restora-

tion: so many points that had been sketched already in the

Gospel. Jesus had given to understand that the Mosaic Lawwas only provisional: St. Paul defines more closely its

function in the past and its actual ineffectiveness and cessa-

tion. To the Saviour's affirmations on the dignity of His per-

son, he adds a few features which forecast, if they do not already

express, the Johannine theology. He creates, so to speak, the

whole theory of the doctrine of Redemption. In regard to the

Church also and her internal organization he brings, in his

Pastoral Epistles, new information. Even his eschatology is

clearer than that of the Synoptists.

However and this should be noticed in all these devel-

opments, St. Paul follows Jesus closely, and aims only at ex-

plaining the Master's thought. When he gives advice in his

own name, he carefully distinguishes it from the commands of

the Lord (i Cor., 712 ' 15

) . If this distinction is seldom met with,it is simply because ordinarily he does .but repeat the teachinghe has received by means of a direct revelation (G., iu> 12

). Herepeats it, but with the impress of his own mind upon it; hedoes not coldly recite a lesson, learned by heart, rather he re-

peats the Master's doctrine as a doctrine which he has lived

and made his own, and the depths of which his heart, as well

as his mind, has lovingly fathomed.

As I have already observed, the Epistle to the Hebrews oughtto be, because of its origin, examined apart from the Epistles ofSt. Paul. The aim of the author is to urge those to whom he

writes to remain immovable in the belief they have accepted,

by withdrawing them from a possible return to Judaism. Toreach that aim, he endeavors to establish the superiority of the

new economy by a comparison of the person, functions andwork of Jesus with the person, functions and work of those who

promulgated and ministered to the Old Law, whence he infers

how firm should be our faith and our hope in the Christian

life. It is then chiefly a Christology and a soteriology -that

he sets before us.

In His earthly manifestation, Jesus is, of course, truly man,of our race and of the tribe of Juda (2

14, 7

14), like unto us,

barring sin, and therefore capable of having compassion onour infirmities (2

17, 4

15, 7

26), faithful, loving and obedient in

regard to God (3**2

, 57 ' 8

) : but this appearance is not all Jesus;He is also the Son, the first-born, the heir of all things, superiorto the Angels who must adore Him, the aTravyao-fjLa T??<? Sd^sKal xapa/cryp rr)$ vTroa-rdcrecos avrov (rov 0eoi5), without begin-

ning and 'end of days. By Him the world was created and is

preserved: He is God (i1'12

, s6

, f>8 ' 16 ' 28

). Not all these feat-

ures can be applied to Christ glorified after the resurrection:

some are necessarily to be referred to Christ preexisting. And

granting that a Philonian influence can be here detected, still

the doctrine of the Incarnation, which appears even in the

second verse of the Epistle (cf. io5), and the theory of Redemp-

tion with which it is filled, show that the author has com-

pletely modified and stated with precision the uncertainty and

principally cosmological concept of Philo. His thought ob-

viously approaches the prologue of the fourth Gospel.

The Son of God has become our priest. As the whole Lawwhose centre it was, the Jewish priesthood had only a provi-

sional character (y11 ' 12j 18) 19

) and was to be transferred. Jesusis our new high priest (4

14). The mediator of the new

covenant (g16

,I224

), He is a priest called by God (45 ' 6 ' 10

):

a priest in the likeness of Melchisedek (620~7

17; 5*), superior

go THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

to the priests of the Levitical order (71'11 ' 2 -28

), innocent and

spotless (y26"28

), eternal and unique (y23 ' 24

).

The victim offered by this priest is He Himself (io7-10

,

727

, g11-15 ' 2S

), and it suffices to offer it once, so efficacious is this

sacrifice (y27

, Q12

,io10 ' 12 ' 14

). By this one act, He redeems us

(Xvrpcoar^j g12 15

) and cleanses us, not from our legal impurities,

as the rites of old did, but from our sins (i3

, 914 ' 28

,io22);

watered by His blood, we are inwardly sanctified (i224

, i312),

freed from Satan's dominion (214), capable of approaching the

throne of mercy, and favored with the blessings of grace (io9,

46

,1222-24

). Then, that sacrifice is offered for all men (s9

, s9, g

28) ;

its efficacy extends to all times (p25 ' 26

); nay, after being per-

formed upon earth, it is perpetuated in the sanctuary of

Heaven, where our high-priest has entered, carrying in His

hands His own blood, and where He continues to intercede for

us fo11 ' 12 ' 24

, 725

).

Since, then, Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant, wemust have confidence in Him (io

19 ' a), and, to go to God, we

must approach our Saviour with full faith (io21"22

). The au-

thor of the Epistle clearly defines what he understands byfaith; he regards it as chiefly an act of the mind, the certain

assurance of the things to be hoped for, the conviction of what

we donot see (i i1) . Faith has been the principleof all the heroic

deeds we admire in the history of Israel (n). One ought to

be careful not to disown that faith he has received from Jesus,

for it is impossible for those who, after knowing the light and

gift of God, have rejected them, to be renewed by penance,

crucifying and mocking the Son of God (6^*) : a passagewhich does not mean that the way of repentance and forgive-

ness is for ever closed to the sinner or even the renegade, but

only that they shall not find salvation outside Jesus and as

long as they obstinately refuse to acknowledge His claims.

Faith and confidence, then, are the chief virtues recom-

mended in the Epistle to the Hebrews; though the others, such

TEACHING OF OTHER APOSTLES 91

as courage, fidelity to the Church, perseverance, are not ex-

cluded, any more than the duties of domestic and social life

(610, 12

?I02

5j32-36

?I22-4

? ^1-7). which we shouM practise

, prfnCl-

pally because of the future judgment. After passing through

death, all have to undergo that judgment (g27

). The time is

near, when Christ shall appear to save those that are waitingfor Him (9

28,n37

). Then, the just shall receive their reward,

enjoy rest, the kingdom, a heavenly home, the heavenly Jeru-salem (4

3 ' 10,io35

,ii16

,I221 ' 23 ' 28

) and be happy for ever (s9,

912 ' 15

,i228

); while the loss of the wicked shall be terrible in

the fire which will consume them (io27 ' 31 ' 39

). In chapter 62,

the author mentions the resurrection of the flesh, but with-

out stating precisely its conditions.

4. The Teaching of the Apostles besides St Patil and St John.1

Under this title, we have to sum up first of all, the doctrine

of the discourses which, according to the Acts, the Apostles

delivered in the days immediately after Pentecost, and then

the doctrine of the Epistles that are ascribed neither to St.

John nor to St. Paul. With them we may join also the nar-

rative parts of the Gospels and the Acts, because these parts

express chiefly the faith of those who wrote them.

As it is impossible to find in that collection of documents a

common central idea, we must follow a conventional plan, on

occasion of which we will insist, when this seems to be needed,

on the special views of such or such a document.2

1 Besides the general works above mentioned, cf. the special literature in

STEVENS, Theology of the N. T., p. 596.2 All know that the authenticity of several of these documents has been

called into question, and most various dates, proposed for their redaction. Here,of course, we cannot enter into the examination of such questions. It suffices

for our purpose that, on the whole, these writings may be considered as an ex-

pression or a faithful echo of the Apostolic preaching in the second half of the

$st century.


On the Trinity in general, nothing is found that improves on

the teaching of Jesus and St. Paul. The three Persons are

clearly distinguished chiefly by St. Luke in the narrative of the

baptism of Jesus (Matt., 316 ' 17

; Mark, i10 ' 11

;Luke 3

21 ' 22).

Of the Holy Ghost, frequent mention is made. The Evan-

gelists mention His cooperating in the miraculous birth of Jesus

(Matt., i20

; Luke, i35

), and His descent upon Him at the time

of His baptism (cf . above) . The Acts tells us how, promised

by the Saviour to the Apostles (i4

;cf. Luke, 24

49), He actually

came down on them on the day of Pentecost (2*; cf.17 ' 18

).

His office is to strengthen faith (65), impart wisdom (6

3), guide

the disciples in their ministry (829

), inspire the new prophets

(n28

, i39), as He inspired those of old (?

51), and grant the

gift of tongues (24

,lo44

"47). According to St. Peter, He is the

source of grace and of the sanctification of the faithful (i P., i2) :

to lie to him, is to lie to God (A., s3 ' 4

).

The discourses recorded in the Acts give us the oldest speci-

men of a defence of Christianity based upon the character of

Jesus. That defence is very simple and consists merely in prov-

ing that Jesus is the promised Messias. He is the prophetannounced by Moses, the servant of God, the irals 6eov of

Isaias (A., 3^22-26^ 427.

rf- ^5). He has fulfilled the prophe-cies (8

32, ff.); even His death was foretold; He is the corner-

stone, that was rejected, spoken of in Ps. ii722

(4"; cf. 425'28

),

the betrayed one mentioned in Ps. 6828(i*

6 ' 20), whose whole

passion had been described beforehand and took place just as

it should have taken place (223

, 318

, 427 > 28

). In Ps. is10

, Davidhad announced His resurrection (3

15, 4

10, $

30,io40), as well as

His ascension and exaltation to Heaven, in Ps. 109* (283-36

).

Of the sacrifice of Jesus, scarcely anything is said. However,the first Epistle of St. Peter contains the notion of the substi-

tutio vicaria (2^) and of our redemption through the Saviour's

blood (i18 ' 19

). On the contrary, the fact of His resurrection

holds a prominent place in the early Apostolic teaching, because


this is for the Jews the decisive proof of His being the Messias.

After going down to hell there to preach to the spirits of the

dead (i P., 319f 20

, 46), the risen Christ ascends to the right hand

of His Father (Mark, i619). There He shall reign forever (2

P., i11

;cf. Luke, i

32 ' 33), for God made Him Christ glorious

and Lord (Acts, 236). The name of tcvpio? becomes His nameand is added to that of Jesus (Acts, n 23 ' * i

21;

cf. *; 429

; 2 P.,

X 2, 8, 11, 14,16)

.

jegus jg the only Ruler and LordQ^ 48).

to

Him are applied the texts written of God Himself in the Old

Testament (Acts, 220 * 21

, 759), and adoration is paid (Matt.,

28 9 ' 17).

Faith is the condition of salvation, and at the same time

that the Apostles require repentance, they demand also that

faith should be given to their words (Acts, 238 ' fi

, 319

, 531

,812 ' 14 -

**) . This reminds us of the opposition which some pretendedexisted between the views of. St. Paul on justification by faith

and those of St. James. Such an opposition does not exist.

No more than St. Paul ascribes justification to a faith merely

speculative, that would not be accompanied by an interior

disposition of obedience and charity, does St. James ascribe

it to works that would not be vivified by faith and charity.

All the doctrine of the latter Apostle is summed up in chapter2 of his Epistle: the faith of Abraham cooperated with his

works, and through them was brought to perfection. Thefaith that prompts us to act is the only true faith; any other

kind is dead and unprofitable. Faith isolated and theoretical,

then, does not save us, any more than works without faith do,

but faith accompanied with works (Jas., 214r26). As to the

Mosaic Law, different views first arose in the primitive Church,in regard to its obligatory value for the Gentiles. These were

beginning to enter the true fold: at Antioch, they formed

already an independent community (Acts, n20"26). Once they

had become Christians, were they to be subjected to the legal

prescriptions of Judaism ?^ (Acts, is

5"11) a question which


Peter solved in the negative (Acts, I57"11

), after receiving divine

indications on the occasion of the conversion of the centurion

Cornelius (Acts, io10-20 ' 28 ' M * 35 ' 44'4S

). James spoke in the same

sense (Acts, is13-20

). However, all uncertainty was not re-

moved, and a doubt arose as to whether or not the converts

from Judaism could associate with those from Paganism and

thus transgress the Law. We find an echo of these scruples in

the Epistle to the Galatians (211"14

). Though Peter considered

such relations perfectly legitimate, still he had a moment of

weakness and was rebuked for, it by St. Paul. It is only later on

that the Epistle to the Hebrews was to proclaim the definitive

extinction of the Old Law and its being replaced by the New.As to the other parts of Christian Ethics, it would be mani-

festly too long to extract all its features from that literature

which is mostly exhortatory. Therein we find recommended

submission to civil authorities and immediate masters, if one

is a servant (i P., 213 ' 14 ' 18), confident prayer (Jas., i

1). St.

James seems to forbid any kind of oath (Jas., 512

) and repro-duces (Jas., i14 ' 15

) the genealogy concupiscence, sin, death, metwith in St. Paul. The latter's energetic protest against the

flesh reappears, too, in St. Jude (23), who regards the body as

a stained tunic to be utterly disliked. The Acts mentions fast-

ing as one of the Church practices (i32>3

, I422).

The Church: such is, in fact, the name given by the Acts,which is its earliest history, to the gathering of the first faith-

ful (su

,81"3

). Among these there is a kind of community of

goods, prompted and maintained by spontaneous charityalone (Acts, 244 > 45

, s8 ' 4

). Moreover, in that Christian people,which generally forms a holy, a royal priesthood (lepdrev^a

ayiov, paai\iov lepdrevfjLa) ,and must offer up spiritual vic-

tims (i P., 2 5 ' 9), there exists a hierarchy. The Apostles re-

serve to themselves, as their own functions, prayer and theSiaicQvta TOV \dyov (Acts, 62j4). Peter evidently appears as

the first of them (Acts, i13 ' 15

?2 14 ' 37

, 36 * tt

, 4*, 53*\ 15?). They


impose hands on the deacons and new converts (Acts, 817).Under them, we find in every community, the Trpefrfivrepoi,

whose duty it is to rule the flock entrusted to them (Acts, n30,

i422

, iS2 ' 6 ' 22 '

*, i64,2i18

;i P., s

1 ' 2). With the Apostles the

presbyters decide on what may be required in the questionof legal observances, and with them, present their decision as

that of the Holy Spirit (Acts, is6 ' > 28

). Then, in the Churchof Jerusalem, we find deacons, instituted with prayer and im-

position of hands, whose function is, at first, to take care of the

poor (Acts, 61' 6), and whom we see later on dispute with the

Jews, baptize and preach (Acts, 6 9,838 ' 40

). At Antioch, wemeet with prophets and teachers, StSd&KaXoi, who impose their

hands on Paul and Barnabas (Acts, is1 ' 3

). In fine, mention is

made of ve&repoi, who must obey the presbyters: whether theyfulfilled a distinct function or not, is uncertain (Acts, 5

6 > 10;

i P., S6).

It is through Baptism that one enters into the Church (Acts,

241,io47 ' 48

). Together with penance, it is the condition of sal-

vation (Acts, 238); it presupposes faith (Acts, 836"38

) and is

administered in the name of Jesus (e? TO bvo^ar^ h rep bvfyarb

49 TO OVOfJLO, TOV KVpioV 'I^CToO, Acts, 238,

IO48,

816). ItS

effect is to remit sins (Acts, 238;

cf. io43), and cleanse us from

our faults through the blood of Jesus, in the sprinkling of

which it consists (i P., i2, s

18-21).

Baptism is ordinarily followed by the imposition of hands

for the communication of the Holy Ghost (Acts, 817 ' 19, 19*'

6) :

sometimes, though, this effusion takes place outside, the rite,

and often is accompanied by the gift of tongues and various

charisms (Acts, lo44"46

, ig6) . Then, in the Christian community,

the breaking of bread is celebrated (Acts, 242 - 46,20 11

). As to

the Apostles of the second generation, Paul and Barnabas, and

the deacons, it is, as we have said, by the imposition of hands

and the prayer either of the firstApostles or of the prophets and

teachers, that they receive their mission (Acts, 66, is

1"3).


In fine, to these rites must be added the one that St. Jamesrecommends in case of sickness. Is any Christian sick? The

presbyters of the Church shall be brought in, who shall prayover him, while anointing him with oil in the name of the

Lord. That trustful prayer shall relieve the sick man, and if

he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him (Jas., s14 ' 15

).

We have still to examine the eschatological teaching of our

documents. It does not differ much from that of Jesus or St.

Paul, but it is difficult to connect together its various elements.

Though there is uncertainty in regard to the precise epoch of

the end of the world, and though St. Peter's second Epistle

insinuates that it may be quite distant (2 P., 38> 9

), still the

prevalent sentiment is that it is near and that we ought to

prepare for it (Acts, 215 ' 21

;i P., 4

7; Jas., s

8 ' 9). With the

Messias, the last times have come (Acts, 216 ' 17) : a thought

which must frighten the wicked and strengthen the just (Jas.,

51' 9

). These last times shall be marked by the apparition of

lying teachers and wayward sects, that will deny the Lord

Jesus and give up themselves to the corruption of their hearts

(2 P., 21-3 ' B * 20, 3

3 - 4). But God, who judges the living and the

dead, and who has already punished in hell the bad angels

(2 P., 24) shall render to every one according to his works

(i P., 46)- The just shall enjoy everlasting life (i P., 3

22; Jude,

21). Sometimes their final state is represented as an inherit-

ance (i P., i4

; Jas., 2 5), other times too, as a reward, the crown

of life granted to those who have courageously suffered (Jas.,

i 12) ;

a felicity that is to last for ever (i P., i4

, 3^) . On the con-

trary, thewicked shall disappear (i P.,418

) and be lost (a-TnoXeia,

2 P., 37); they shall be punished by the fire that shall devour

them, as it did Sodom and Gomorrha (2 P., 26

; Jude,7 > 8

).

Then a universal conflagration shall dissolve the earth, the ac-

tual heavens and the elements; new heavens and a new earth

where justice shall dwell, shall appear; this is the object of our

expectation (2 P., 3M3

).

TEACHING OF ST. JOHN 97

5. The Teaching of St. John.1

The exposition of the teaching of Jesus in the fourth Gospel

is, at least, a partial exposition of St. John's teaching, for the

disciple has so well marked with his own stamp the discourses

of the Master, that he has made them his own by the tone and

terminology he ascribes to them. We hear the author in the

words he relates. But, leaving aside these discourses, we have

still, as sources of the doctrine strictly Johannean, besides the

narrative portions of the Gospel, the Epistles attributed to the

Apostle, and the Apocalypse. All know the difficulties raised

against these writings: especially the last has been, since the

early times of the Church, the object of suspicions, and even

keen criticisms.2 We will not enter here into the discussion of

these difficulties. Many have thought, on the contrary, that

the Apocalypse bears the stamp of St. John, and therein is con-

tained in germ the theology which was to be developed in the

Epistles and in the Gospel. Whatever the value of such an

opinion may be, it is quite proper first to present apart the

teachings of the Apocalypse, because of their special char-

acter: notwithstanding the new spirit and the mystical pointsof view to be found in^them, they are still connected with Juda-ism and its forms.

All these teachings centre around Christology and escha-

tology. However, God also and His Angels are, in them, the

object of special attention. The former is not so muchlooked upon as a Father, as considered in His attributes of

majesty and omnipotence. He is the Eternal, the Alpha and

1 Besides the general works mentioned above, cf. the special literature in

STEVENS, The Theology of the N. J1

., pp. 595, 596; and also A. LOISY, Le qua-tri&me Evangikj Paris, 1903; TH. CALMES, UEvangile selon Saint Jean, Paris,

1904; SANDAY, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 19055 LEPIN, Valeur historique

du quatrikme EvangUe, Paris, 1909.2EUSEB., Eccl. Hist., VII, 25.


Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last (i8,

2 16

,22 13

), TravTo/cpaTcop (i8, 4

8, etc.), creator of the universe

by His free will alone (411

,io6

, i47). Near Him is Jesus.

Though the Apocalypse seems to assign Him an inferior part

in regard to the Father (i1,226 ' 27

), yet it raises Him very highin the glory of His triumph, and finally associates Him com-

pletely to the Father in some attributes it ascribes to Him, and

in the homage it describes as paid to Him. Thus the Son of

Man is judge and Lord (i16 ' 20

), the prince of the kingdoms of

the earth, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings (i5

, ly14).

On one hand, He is the faithful witness and the Amen (i5, 3

4 '

14), the first begotten of the dead, who has the keys of death

and of hell (i5> 18

), the principle of God's creation(f) ap%rj 7779

KTfoew rov deov, 314) ;

on the other, He is, like the Father, the

first and the last (o Trp&ros real 6 ecr^aro?, i17

,28), associated

with God in the same praise and honors (s12 ' 13

) ? always placedclose to Him and joined with Him (6

16, 7

9 ' 10,n 15

,i210

,

I44

,2 1

22,223

)-

It is under the figure of a lamb immolated that Jesus ap-

pears to the seer : by this lamb, through its blood, we have been

redeemed in a redemption which has been universal (s9

;cf. 14*,

52

,ii 6

); in its blood our sins have been washed (i5, y

14,22 14

).

The death of Jesus is thus pointed out as the condition of our

reconciliation, and the root of salvation.

Then, under Jesus, we find the Angels. They play in the

Apocalypse, as they ordinarily do in writings of this kind, a

considerable part which it is useless for us to analyze in detail.

Thoughwe must mention especiallythe seven spirits (wetpara)that stand before the throne of God (i

4), and are identified with

the seven lamps burning before the throne (4*) and with the

seven eyes of the Lamb (i6). In chapter i

4 ' 6, they are named

between God and Jesus, and apparently each one of them

speaks, one after the other, in the letters sent to the Churches

(27, ii, IT, 29

? 3e, 13,

22). Qn the other hand, mention is made of


the Spirit who speaks (i413

) and yearns, with the Bride, for the

coming of Jesus (2217

). Perhaps we have in these seven spirits

a symbolical personification of the manifold action of the

Holy Ghost, and in all these passages taken together, an out-

line of the Johannean pneumatology (John, 14-16).

Over against good Angels, the demon appears. He is repre-sented under the shape of a dragon (i2

3;

cf. i2 9), the ancient

serpent (of Genesis) called the devil and Satan, and seduces

the whole world (i29

). The enemy of God, he too has his

angels (i27> 9

), a throne (213), a synagogue (a

9, 3

9) a doctrine

with mysteries (ra ftaQea TOV I^arava, 2 s4). Defeated by

Michael and his Angels and precipitated from Heaven (i27 8

),

he wars against the children of God, and is helped in this work

by the two beasts, which respectively personify corrupting and

persecuting iniquity (is1"17

).

Still, God and His justice shall triumph, and this triumphwill constitute the end of things. The eschatological visions

of Patmos contain many dements and images borrowed from

Jewish Apocalypses that were being circulated when it was

composed, and as far as this is concerned, these visions are little

original. But, on the other hand, they have exercised too great

an influence on subsequent ecclesiastical Eschatology, to be

neglected. Hence it may be profitable to point out at least

their connection.

First comes the fall of the Babylon that murdered and

persecuted the Saints; this is the first victory of the Lamb

(17, 1 8), whose wedding has arrived, and whose bride gets

ready (ig7 * 9

). Then the Word of God appears, on horse-

back, as a warrior, His robe stained with blood, and followed

by the armies of Heaven (ig11-15

). Against Him gather the

beast, the false prophet, the kings and the mighty, enemies of

His rule, with their troops (ig17'19

). The beast and the false

prophet are seized and cast alive into a lake of fire and sul-

phur; the others are killed, and their flesh eaten up by the

zoo THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

birds of the air (ig17 ' 18 ' 20> 21

); Satan 'is bound captive and

relegated for a thousand years to the abyss (201-3

).

Then takes place a first resurrection for the just only. Theycome back to life, and with Christ whose priests they are,

reign for a thousand years (so4* 6

).

That reign of a thousand years is followed by another trial.

Freed for a while from his jail, Satan seduces the nations of the

four corners of the world, and they come together and besiege

the holy city (2o7' 8

;cf. 2o3). But then God Himself inter-

venes. Fire from Heaven destroys the rebels; Satan is sent

to the lake of fire and sulphur, there to share the fate of the

beast and pseudoprophet, and be tormented with them for-

ever (209> 10

), and a second resurrection, this one universal and

followed by a judgment universal too (2012 ' 13

), prepares the

definitive triumph of justice. It is according to his works (icara

ra epya) written down in the books of Heaven, that everybodyshall be judged (20

12 ' 13,

2a

,2212

). The consequence of this

judgment is for any one whose name is not found in the bookof life, "death" and "hell," "the second death," viz., the con-

demnation to the lake of fire and sulphur that has alreadyreceived the beast, the false prophet and the dragon (2o

14> 15,

2 18). There are precipitated the fearful, unbelieving, abomina-

ble, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, idolaters and all liars

(2i8

;cf. 2216). Besides, the punishment is analogous to the

crimes committed (i66, i3

10,220

-23,i8 6 ' 7

) ;moreover it is eternal,

(2010): nowhere is restoration mentioned (cnroicdraaracn^) .

For the just, on the contrary, a new earth and new heavensshall be created, for the old ones have already disappeared

(2 11

;cf . 2o11

) . A new Jerusalem, the bride of the Lamb, comesdown from Heaven, magnificent and splendidly clad, of whicha description is given to us (2 1

11 27) . This is the Church trium-

phant, the definitive Pavikela rov Oeov, in which the Saints

shall reign for ever with God and behold His face (2i3 ' 4

,

224 ' 5.

Now, we may pass to the doctrine of St. John's Gospel and

Epistles.

"God is light, and in him there is no darkness7 '

(i J.,

i5). "God is love" (i J., 4

8 ' 16). These are the two defini-

tions of God which St. John gives us, and which tend to repre-

sent Him as the source of all purity, holiness and life, for, ac-

cording to the Apostle, darkness is the Evil (i J., i 6 ' 7). The

love of God for us has shown itself, chiefly in this, that Hehas sent into the world His only-begotten Son, that in Him we

might have life (i J., 49). Who is this only-begotten Son? He

is the Son simply and by way of preeminence (i J., 222-24),

the "Only-begotten" (J., i14 ' 18

): the Word. The term

Xo'709 which is already found in the Apocalypse is

directly or indirectly borrowed from Platonic Philosophy and

especially from Philo; but the Apostle fills it with a meaningof which it did not admit, and the Word becomes a person,

which He was not before. Jesus is then the true Word, the

creating Word, by whom all things were made (J., i3

), the

revealing Word, light of the world (J., i9), the Word who

from the beginning (ez> ap^y) was near God (TT/W rov deov)

in the bosom of the Father, and who was God (ilf 2) 18

), and be-

came incarnate and came into this world with real flesh (J.,

T-14. rT ,2,3 ,-1,6-8,12. 2

T7-12)1

9L J-y 4 j 5 j

* J'j J f

His work here below has been to communicate to us the life

that is in Him (i J., i2

, 314

, s11 ' 20

) and therefore first to blot

out our sins and dissolve in us the works of the Evil Spirit

(i J-3 35f 8

)- Hence Jesus had to die, not only for the nation of

Israel, but also for all the dispersed children of God (J., n 51 '

62), that He might be a propitiation for our sins (7Xao-/j<fc), and

purify us through His blood (i J., i7

,22

, 410).

However, the world has not responded to that grace of the

Father through Jesus. In St. John, the world is sometimes sim-

ply the whole of created things (J., i 9 ' 10), more often the


whole of the powers which oppose upon earth the dominion of

God. This whole world lies in wickedness (i J., 519), and all

that is found therein is nothing but pride and concupiscence

(i J., 216

). Its proper work is sin, iniquity (avopia, i J., 3^

517

). Here sin is not a passing transgression of God's will: it

is the state of habitual opposition to His laws; and hence he

that is born of God and preserves this filiation does not sin,

nay, cannot sin (i J., 39 ' 10

, 518

), just as he that abides in

Jesus (i J., 36). On the other hand, however, the Apostle

distinguishes sins that are and sins that are not, ad mortem

(irpbs ddvarov, HTJ Trpb? Sdvarov, i J., 516j 17

). For the former,

we ought not to intercede; for the latter, we may do so, and life

will be granted. It is probably for these, that, according to St.

John, we have near the Father an advocate, Jesus (i J., 21).

True Christians, then, will be solicitous to detest the world

and triumph over it by faith (i J., 215, s

4 ' 5), and also to sanctify

themselves, according to the pattern of God Himself, that theymay become like Him and behold Him as He is, when Hereveals Himself (tcad&s lo-riv, i J., 3

2> 3).

This short sketch of the Johannean Theology must be com-

pleted, as has been already observed, by what has been said

of the teaching of Jesus according to the fourth fjospel. The

theology of St. John marks the highest point of religious reve-

lation in the New Testament. In the Synoptists, the words

of Jesus are found conditioned by the quality of His hearers

and must be confined, most of the time, within the horizon of

Jewish thought. Of course, they extend infinitely beyond that

horizon, but without modifying the general outline of that

horizon, without rendering it strange, unfamiliar to those wholisten to Him. St. Paul does away, at least partially, with the

altogether Palestinian mold of that first teaching. As the

Apostle of the Gentiles and of the Dispersion, he must adaptit to the Hellenistic Jews and to the Greeks, and therefore sup-

press or soften the features that might make it unintelligible.


But in St. John (we mean the Gospel and the Epistles), this

work is pushed much further. When he writes, the Church has

advanced far beyond the countries in which she was born, and

she must adopt new modes of thought and speech, if she wishes

to be understood and friendly received. A few adaptations of

details would not suffice: it is a full translation and interpre-

tation of the doctrinal data of the Synoptists, that becomes

necessary. Jewish particularism and symbolism are to be defini-

tively discarded; instead, the universality of the Gospel

religion is to be proclaimed, the divine realities therein con-

tained to be searched and studied, the love of God and the

dignity of Jesus to be plainly and unhesitatingly displayedin their infinite grandeur. God is Spirit, and He must be

adored in spirit. The Messias of the Jews, the Anointed of the

Lord, is the Word of God, God eternal as the Father, incarnate

and made man. The salvation He brings us is the very life of

God which He comes to communicate to us and which, if de-

veloped in us and by us, will make us like unto the Father and

able to see Him even as He is. This is, in a few words, the

translation St. John gives of the Master's preaching: a trans-

lation which is to become henceforth the expression of the newfaith. Christian Antiquity has called the disciple whom

Jesus loved the Theologian, and rightly so: for St. John be-

sides being an inspired writer and an organ of divine revela-

tion is also the first, in the order of time, and, most probablythe greatest, theologian of the Church.

CHAPTER HI

THE TESTIMONY OP THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS l

i. Preliminary Remarks.

THE title of "Apostolic Fathers" is given to the ecclesiastical

writers who lived at the end of the first or during the first half

of the second century, and are supposed to have received from

the Apostles or their immediate disciples the teaching theytransmit. Writers not inspired and inferior, in depth of views,

to the authors of the New Testament, they are inferior too, in

richness of doctrine and power of reflection, to those whocame after them. They are witnesses of belief far more than

theologians. If we except St. Ignatius, whose mind is more

original, their great value comes chiefly from their antiquity.

Moreover, their works belong chiefly to the hortatory kind of

literature: often, they are writings composed merely for the

occasion, letters on religious and Christian themes, which do

1 The aim of this work being to expose the Doctrine of the authors of

whom we are treating, and not to set forth their lives and deeds, the reader will

not find here a strictly so called biographical or bibliographical account. In-

formation of this kind, which we suppose already acquired, is to be found in

authors of Patrologies and in historians of ancient ecclesiastical literature, suchas NIRSCHL, FESSLER-JUNGMANN, BARDENHEWER [English transl.], BATIFFOI,,

HARNACK, KRUGER, KRUMBACHER, EHRHARD, EBERT, etc. (See a list of them,with the exact title of their works in BARDENHEWER, Geschichte der altkirch-

lichen Litteratur, vol. I, Friburg in Brisgau, 1902, pp. 16, ff.). We will, for eachone of the authors to be examined, merely mention the edition referred to in

this volume and point out the best and most recent studies on his theology.

Kriiger's work has been also translated into English,

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 105

not pretend at all to treat these in a didactic and completemanner.

These Apostolic Fathers, eight in number, may be rangedfrom a geographical standpoint, in the following order: at

Rome, the first Epistle of St. Clement (93-97) and the Shep-herd of Hennas (about 140-155); at Rome or at Corinth

}the

homily called the second Epistle of St. Clement (about 150);

at Antioch and along the shores of Asia Minor, the seven

Epistles of St. Ignatius (107-117); at Smyrna, the Epistle of

St. Polycarp and his Martyrium (the latter, about 155-156);at Hierapolis in Phrygia, the fragments of Papias (about 150) ;

perhaps in Palestine, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (in its

actual form, about 131-160, according to Harnack; in its

whole, about the end of the first century, according to Funk,Zahn and Batiffol); finally, probably in Egypt, the (apocry-

phal) Epistle of St. Barnabas (130-131, according to Harnack).1

The source from which these documents draw their teaching,

and the authority on which they intend to base it, is first of all

the Old Testament. For them it is the Scripture by way of

preeminence (9? ypatyfy <yfypa7rrai)* the holy word (o aywXdyo?).

8 But an equal authority is ascribed to the words of

Jesus,4 and St. Ignatius, placing the Gospel on the same level

as the Prophets, quotes it also under the head of ^e^pairrca

(Phila., 82

;cf. Smyrn., f). As to the Apostles, St. Ignatius

too considers them as the masters of the belief of the Church,the preslyterium of the Eternal Father, with which we oughtto remain united.5 The Teaching of the Apostles is entitled

Kvpiov Sea r&v ScoSe/ea a7ro<jTo'\G>z>, and we find in

1 Cf . the editions in BAKDENHEWER, op. tit., vol. I, p. 67. The edition here

referred to is the second edition of FITNK, Paires Apostolici, Tubingen, 1901.2 i Clem., 41

, 3Q3, 3S

7, etc.; IGNAT., Magnes., 12, etc.; Barn., 4

7.

* i Clem., 13*.*Ttypairrat (Barn., 414

); &r4pa ypaQiq (2 Clem., 24); & TCWS ypaQcus et/>i/rcu

(PoLYC., Philipp., I21).

5Magn., 61

; Trail, a2, 3*.

s; Rom., 4

3etc,


the works we are now examining more or less explicit quo-tations of almost all the Apostolic writings of the New Tes-

tament. This does not mean that the Apostolic Fathers had

already a determined canon of the New Testament as

a matter of fact, we find in them some quotations, though in

small number, from' apocryphal books 1,but that they re-

garded the words of the Apostles, as well as those of Jesus,

in the texts which, as they thought, recorded them, as a de-

cisive authority establishing irrefutably doctrine and faith.

Moreover, these words of the Apostles, or at least the echo of

their words, were supposed to be contained elsewhere than in

the written documents. It is well-known that Papias placed,

side by side with, and even above the written tradition, the

oral tradition of those who had conversed with the Apostlesand the elders.

2 Several of the quotations made by the Apos-tolic Fathers do not come from our canonical books 3

: perhapsthe substance of these quotations had been transmitted to

them by memory. Finally the idea of an ecclesiastical doctrinal

authority, of a living teaching, more elastic and supple than

the words merely related of Jesus and the Apostles, and, like

these, imposing itself, appears in St. Ignatius, and perhaps,

too, even in St. Clement. The latter appeals to "the glo-

rious and venerable rule of our tradition" (i Clem., 72); the

former affirms that no Christian can more lawfully separatehimself from the bishop than from God, Jesus and the Apostles

(Trail., 6^-y1

). "Children of truth, flee divisions and false

doctrines; but where your shepherd is? there do ye, as sheep,

Mow after" (PUla., 21).

The Old Testament with a few apocryphals, the words and

writings of Jesus and the Apostles, oral tradition, one or two

1Gospel of the Egypt., in 2 Clem., 4

6, sS *#', Doctrine ofPetertf) in ST. IGNA-

TIUS, Smyrn., $2.

2ETTSEB., Eccl Hist., HI, 39, 4.

1 Cf. v. g., i Clem., if; also HERMAS, Similit. 8, 81;

s Clem., 85; Barn., 6U,

FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. CLEMENT 107

apocryphal documents of the New Testament, the teaching of

the bishop: these, then, are the sources from which the doc-

trine of the Apostolic Fathers is derived.

What is this doctrine? This question we shall answer, bytaking up, one after the other, because of their importance,each one of them.

2. The First Epistle of St Clement1

The very aim which St. Clement intended in his Epistle, viz.,

to restore in the Church of Corinth peace and obedience to

legitimate pastors, explains easily why teachings on the au-

thority of the leaders of the Church and moral exhortations

are predominant therein. Nevertheless, we find in it dogmatic

elements, few indeed, but worth gathering, contained as theyare in such an ancient writing.

God's kindness and mercy are often set forth (ig2> 5

, 23*, 29*),

and His power also (27*-5). We may remark too the great

number of doxologies which separate the author's develop-

ments (so12

, 32*, 384, 43

6, etc.). Then, near God, we find the

person of Jesus, of whom more will be said later on, and the

Holy Spirit. It was under the influence of this Spirit that the

sacred authors spoke (81, 45

2), and it is under His influence

also ($L& rov ajfov vrvevparos) that the author of the Epistle

declares he is writing (6s2) ;

but the Holy Spirit Himself is

but the instrument of Jesus, speaking to us in the Old Testa-

ment (221>ff<

). Two trinitarian formulas, of unequal value,

1 A. BRULL, Der erste Brief des Clemens wn Rom, Friburg, 1882; WREDE,Untersuchungen tiber den ersten Clemensbrief, Gottingen, 1891; G. COURTOIS,

L'Epfttre de Clement de Rome, Montauban, 1894; BANG, Studien tiber den

Clemensbrief, Theolog. Studien und Kritiken, vol. LXXI, 1898; J. GREGG, The

Epistle of St. Clement, London, 1899; A. STAHI, Patristische Untersuchungen,

Leipsic, 1901; A. SCEERER, Der erste Clemensbrief an die Corinther, Ratisbon,

1902; D* VOLTER, Die apostolischen Vtiter neu undersucht, I, Leyden, 1904;

R. SOHM, Kirchenrecht, I, Leipsic, 1892; H. HEMMER, Clement de Rome, Paris,

1909 (in the series Textes et Documents).

io8 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

sum up St. Clement's teaching on this mystery. In Chapter

466

,he tells us that we have "but one God, one Christ, one

Spirit of grace poured out upon us all, one calling in Christ."

In Chapter 582,comes the formula of oath: ?} yap 6 0eo9, /cal

f)6 KVpLQ? 'I?;<TOi55 X/MC7T09 KOl TO TTVevâ TO HjLOV tf

T 7TLCTTL?

teal f) k\Tw$ T&V e\etcT&v, on KT\. ("For as God liveth, andthe Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, the Faith

and the Hope of the elect ...") If we place this formula

side by side with the formula of the Old Testament, 77

(i Kings, i439

,2o3

,2616

, etc.), we see that, for Clement,

decomposes itself into o 0eoV, 6 tcvpios 'lya-ov? Xpcrro'?,

TO Trmvpa TO ayiov, these three terms being invoked together

as tokens of his word. 1

Jesus comes from Abraham /CCLTO, a-dp/ca ($22) ;

He is God's

servant (âfc Oeov, sg2"4

, liturgical formulas), but also His

Son (woV, 364). In Chapter 36

2- 5, Clement, quoting the

Epistle to the Hebrews (i3*13

), raises Jesus above the Angels,

and represents Him as the splendor of divine majesty, begottenof God, sitting at His right hand. We would believe that he

calls Him even God (rcaQâTa avroir, viz., Qeov, 2 1), if we

would abide by the reading of the oldest MS., the Alexandri-

nus, a reading adopted by Harnack. The MS. of Constan-

tinople and the Latin and Syriac translations give aurou=

The part of Jesus is to save us. He has given His blood for

us, His flesh for our flesh, His soul for our souls (496

;cf. 3i

6).

Through this blood the redemption of all has been wrought(XvTjoocw, i2 7

); to all the grace of repentance, offered (y4).

Jesus is then our salvation, the pontiff of our offerings, the

advocate of our weaknesses (361), our high-priest (64).

Through Him we give glory to God and pray to Him ($82, 64,

6i8), but He Himself too must be honored (lvTpaira)p>ev, 2i 6).

1 A similar formula is found in the Assumption of Isaias, 3**.

FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. CLEMENT 109

The work of Jesus is continued by the Apostles. They are

the messengers of Jesus as He is the messenger of God:*O X/U0T09 Ol)V CLTTO TOV BeOV^ Kal ol a7TO(7TO\OL aTTO TOV X/HCTTOl)

*

e<yeVoz"ro ovv ap^drepa evTa/cTO)? e/c 6e\r)pa,TQ$ ffeov (42*'2

:

"Christ therefore was sent by God, the Apostles by Christ:

so both were orderly sent, according to the will of God")-In their turn the Apostles establish overseers and deacons

(424), then decide that others, after themselves, shall inherit

their office (442). Elsewhere, mention is made of Trpeo-fivrepot,

(i3

,2i 6

, 445

, 542, 57

2), whom the author seems to identify with

the overseers (44*'4 > 5

). Against this confusion, the passageof chapter 4o

5,has been invoked, in which Clement distin-

guishes the high-priest (apyi&pe6s), the priests (/>&) and the

levites (kevtrai) : but this passage refers not to the Christian

hierarchy, but to the Jewish. On the other hand, overseers

and presbyters are described as presenting the offerings,

o<riW TrposeveyKovras TO, $a>pa (444): hence they fulfilled

strictly liturgical functions. In keeping with the aim of his

letter, the author often returns to the obligation of obeyingthose who command (i

3), the guides of our souls (63

1), the

presbyters (476, 54

2, 57

1). It is a grievous sin to deprive them,

without any sufficient reason, of the exercise of their office, as

the Corinthians have done (443> 4 - 6

? 476) ;

on the contrary, theymust be honored (i

3;

cf. 33

,2i 6

).

The root of the dissensions existing in the Corinthian Church

is envy. St. Clement opposes it vigorously (3^-6) : he is un-

willing to suffer any division in the body of Christ (466), and

therefore he insists everywhere on the practice of humility,

meekness and obedience, and pays to charity a magnificent

tribute of praise (49). God gives to all men, He has given

even to those who lived before us, the facility of repentance:

we can always do penance and obtain the forgiveness of our

sins (75~ 7

;cf. 82 ' 5

). As to the principle of justification, we

find, in the Epistle now under our consideration, the two cur-

no THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

rents of thought represented by St. Paul and by St. James.

Sometimes, the author states with the former that the Elect

have obtained their glory neither by themselves nor by their

works, even when these were good, but by the will of God, and

that thus, called in Christ by the same will, we are not justi-

fied by our works, but by faith, in which God has, from the

beginning, justified all men (323>4

); sometimes too, when

he proceeds to give practical rules of conduct, he insists, on

the contrary, on the necessity of good works and virtuous

deeds (331, 3S

2); Abraham was blessed, because he fulfilled,

through faith, justice and truth (31). Here St. Clement

takes the same point of view as St. James, and regards as

inefficacious, faith without works.

Then, to encourage the Corinthians in their endeavors at

doing good, he sets before their eyes the thought of the final

retribution. There will be a judgment (sS1

), and God shall

treat every one according to his deeds (343

). The reward of the

just will be the expansion of the blessings brought to us bygrace here below, and particularly of the &q ev aOavaala

(3S2

;cf. 36

2). As St. Paul, whose martyrdom is mentioned

as well as that of St. Peter (s3" 7

), they will go to the holy place

(ek TOP ayiov TOTroVj 57), to the place reserved for the just,

and when God's kingdom takes place (ev ry evncncoTry rfj?

/3a<n\e(a$ rov Oeov), they will be manifested (5o3). More-

over, Clement formally teaches the resurrection of the flesh

which he bases not merely on the authority of Scripture andthe example of Jesus, but also on analogies drawn from natu-

ral facts (24-263

).

In fine, we [may give a special mention to chapters 59-61,in as much as they supply us with an invaluable specimen of

liturgical prayer at the end of the first century.

HERMAS in

3. Hennas* Shepherd.1

Hennas' Shepherd is chiefly a work of edification: "a vast

examination of conscience of the Roman Church/3the aim of

which is to point out the spiritual relaxations that take placein her midst, and to present, in penance, the remedy that will

cure them. Penance: such is then, properly speaking, the

subject of the work. The other doctrines are setJ:orth only

incidentally, and often under images and parables which de-

tract much from their clearness.

Hernias givesus twice a connected description of the disorders

he intends to censure: in Similitude 8 6"10,and then in Simili-

tude 919-31

. At the time he is writing his book, persecution has

already raged, and side by side with martyrs who have val-

iantly confessed their faith, may be found apostates who, not

only have denied it, but also have blasphemed and denounced

their brethren. Others have apostatized, merely through

self-interest, because of too great an attachment to their tem-

poral goods. Then there are teachers of lies, hypocrites who

spread error; rich and mighty ones, who, without renouncingtheir belief, lead, in the midst of pagans, a wholly pagan life;

Christians who are slanderers and blunderheads and always

ready to form cliques; ambitious men, who are self-conceited

and rash; sinners who yield to their passions; in short, awhole series of spiritual weaknesses, that were to be found not

only in the ordinary Christians, but also in the leaders of the

community (Simil. 9, 262; Vis., 2, 2 6

). All these evils can be

accounted for, according to Hennas, by the Svfyvxfa, viz., by

1 TH. ZAHN, Der Hirt des Hermas untersucht, Gotha, 1868; AD. LINK, Christi

Person und Werk im Hirten des Hermas9 Marburg, 1886; A. RTBAGNAC, La

Christologie du Pasteur d'Hermas, Paris, 1887; E. HtfCKSTADT, Der Lehrlegrtff

des Hirten, AnJdam, 1887; A. STAHL, Patristische Untersuchungen, Leipsic, 1901;P. BATTETOL, Etudes d'Histoire et de Thtologie Positivej ist series, Paris, 1904,

pp. 4Sj ff.; D. V5LTER, Die ap'ostotischen Vitter nen unterswM, I, Leydeh, 1904,

ii2 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

the hesitation and division of the soul between two beliefs andtwo lines of conduct: though the author does not alwaysattach the same meaning to this word which often comes to

his pen, yet ^v^ia always implies, after all, a lack of strongconvictions.

Sinners, nay, apostates, are, then, to be found in the Church.

Can they do penance and is there for them a pardon? Hermashas heard certain doctors say that there is none, and that the

only penance granted to a Christian is the one he performs in

Baptism when he receives the remission of his former sins

(Command 4, 3*) : this error which was to be upheld later on

by some Montanists, was already followed by a few (napd TW&V

&8ao7ca\G>z>). On the contrary, other false teachers, im-

bued with Gnostic ideas, whom Hermas accuses of importing

foreign doctrines, persuaded the sinners that they did not need

any penance (SimiL 8, 6 5). These two extreme opinions

Hennas does not accept. On one hand, he declares penance

necessary: it alone can save the sinner (Vis. 3, 72 6

; SimiL

8, 84 ' 5, 9

4,ii3

); on the other hand, he declares it possible and

efficacious (SimiL 8, 63,ii3

): let us examine more closely on

what conditions.

First of all, our author admits of penance only for sins com-

mitted until the moment when he writes. After that, the

offending Christians cannot reckon on that means of recon-

ciliation. To the Gentiles alone, penance (through Baptism)is possible until the end of time (Vis. 2, 2

6 ' 8). The penance he

preaches, then, presents the character of an extraordinaryconcession: it is a kind of jubilee.

In the second place, he grants that penance but once to the

Christians of his time (Command 4, s4"" 6

): we cannot alter-

nately, as it were, often sin, and then repent: should we act

thus, we should make our salvation extremely improbable.But that penance, that unique forgiveness, does Hennas

grant it at least to all categories of sinners? At first sight, we

HERMAS 113

might think that he excludes the apostates who have blas-

phemed and who have denounced their brethren: he declares

they are a wicked race, that has died to God for ever (efe reXo9,

SimiL 8, 64; SimiL 9, ig

1;

cf. SimiL 6, 23 ' 4). These words,

however, are the expression of an experience ascertained,

rather than that of a principle. The rods that represent the

apostates that have blasphemed have been, just as the other

rods, planted and watered by the Shepherd, and he who has

made them intended that they should, like the others, become

green again (Simil. 8, 2 8> 9). Hence it is only because of their

obduracy that these unfortunate sinners have remained in

death. In regard to the other categories of sinners, Hennasnot only admits that they can be reconciled, he even thinks

that, as a matter of fact, most of them do get their pardon

(Simil. 8, 66,82

, g1 ' 2

;lo1 ' 3

). The Sfyz,Xot Christians are

easily converted, and the loss of any one of them seems rather

difficult (SvoveoXG)?; cf. SimiL 8, io2).

How is that penance to be done in practice? The author

does not enlarge much on this point. As is evident, we oughtfirst to repent of our sins and change our interior dispositions:

penance is a perdvoia (Simil. 7, 4); still, this does not suffice:

the true convert must also bear the punishments his sins have

deserved, and crucify his soul and body (ibid.). A determined

rate is mentioned: one hour of forbidden pleasure is expiated

by thirty days of penance, and one day (viz., twelve hours), byone year (SimiL 6,

4).

Side by side with this penitential doctrine, we find in the

Shepherd a system of moral teachings, generally stamped with

indulgent moderation and great common sense. We may note

down a few features thereof. Fasting is reckoned among the

works of penance (Vis. 3, i1); yet, let it be well understood:

God is far more pleased by aversion to the world than by mere

material fasting (SimiL 5, i) : the latter, moreover, must be

turned into alms (SimiL 5, 37). Hennas presents, without any


hesitation, the fulfilment of the commandments, as the con-

dition necessary for obtaining life and the object of God's

promises (Simil. i, 7, 6, i1

, IQ, 24, etc.) : the preaching of Jesus

is a law (z/o/w, Simil. 8, 32 ' 3

). In connection with chastity, the

author treats the case of adultery. The husband who is aware

of his wife's infidelity must not dwell with her; otherwise he

shares in her sin; but neither ought he to take another wife,

else he too would become an adulterer. If the woman repents,

he must take her back. The same must be said of the wife in

regard to the husband (Command 4, i4" 10

). Hermas, then,

does not authorize a divorce attempted because of adultery.

However, from his text, it does not appear very clearly whether

he gives such a decision because he considers marriage as abso-

lutely indissoluble, or rather because he places on the offended

party the obligation of making it possible for the guilty one to

do penance and repent. As to a second marriage, Hermasallows it, though he thinks widowhood is preferable (Com-mand 4, 4

1 ' 2) . Among all virtues and he recommends many

of them the one he places first is innocence, simplicity,

purity of life. They who practise it are typified by a green and

fruitful mountain (Simil. 9, 24), or also by a mountain whollywhite (Simil. 9, 29

1"3), and the author does not hesitate to prefer

them even to martyrs (cf. Simil. 9, 28). One of the forms of

that innocence is continence, chastity. Hermas not onlyrecommends not to defile the body in which the Holy Ghost

dwells, but is himself an encratite ('E/a/tfo o fyfcparfy, Vis. i,

24) : henceforth he will live with his wife as with a sister (Vis.

2, 23, 3

1); he has sinned, but his perfect continence shall save

him (TTO\X^ ty/epdreia, Vis. 2, 32).

Dogmatic teaching, strictly so called, holds in the Shepherda far smaller place than the moral teaching, and is treated in

it only incidentally, as I have already said. A passage, often

quoted, on the unity of God and on creation (Command i, i),

has contributed to make this little work well known. Among

HERMAS

God's attributes, Hennas insists chiefly on His mercy. Thoughhe does not call Him Father, still he evidently regards Him as

such.

As to the Christology of the Shepherd, it has given rise to

many discussions and controversies which, perhaps, cannot

be fully solved.

We may remark first that Hennas never uses the terms

Word and Jesus Christ to designate the Saviour: he always

designates Him by the title of Son of God (uw TQV 0eoO) or

also of Lord (fcvpios, Vis. 3, 73). This Lord is made up, during

His mortal life, of two elements, a humanity or a flesh (<rdpg)

and a holy Spirit that dwells therein (Simil. 5, 6 5> 6). Hence

the question that comes up is this: does not Hennas con-

found with the Holy Ghost the divine element joined to the

flesh of Jesus? Does he truly distinguish, before the Incar-

nation, besides the Father and the Holy Ghost, another

divine person who became incarnate, or is this incarnate

divine person the Holy Ghost Himself? And, since he

admits, as we 'shall see later on, that in its reward the

humanity of Jesus has been associated with the Father and

the Spirit, is not, in his system, the trinity of persons conse-

quent on the glorification of Jesus, instead of preceding it, as

in the doctrine of the Church?

The texts that have given rise to this difficulty are found in

the fifth Similitude, chapters 2, 5 and 6, with which we mustconnect the ninth Similitude, i

1,I21 ' 3

. Now, notwithstand-

ing the obscurities that still remain, we can infer from these

passages; (i) that Hermas establishes between God and the

Holy Ghost the relations of Father to Son: "The Son [of the'

Master] is the Holy Spirit (o S vub$ TO Trvevpa TO Hytdv IO-TIV^

Simil. 5, s2) ; (2) that in his system, the Holy Ghost has as-

sumed a body, or rather has been made by God to dwell in a

body (/caTcpiacrev o 0eo<? efc crap/co,, Simil. 5, 65), in order that

with it He might constitute the Saviour; (3) that, conse-


quently, Jesus is, for Hermas, a mere man in whom the HolyGhost has dwelt, the author of the Shepherd being, on this

point, the precursor of the Adoptianists, and ascribing to the

text of St. Luke 321 ' a2

,about the descent of the Holy Ghost on

Jesus, a bearing it has not; (4) that, finally, the trinity of

persons in God is always for him a result of glorification of

that flesh which has entered into participation with the Holy

Spirit and God's inheritance (Simil. 5, 6 6) ;

for it is not certain,

moreover, that Hermas admits the perseverance of the union

of the Spirit and the flesh, after the Saviour's glorification,

that flesh being, so to speak, given back to itself, once its office

has been accomplished (Simil. 5, 6 7).

Of the redeeming work of the Son of God, the Shepherd says

very little: he mentions only the sufferings and labors the

Saviour bore for that purpose, and the cleansing of the sins of

the people He has thus wrought (Simil. 5, 62 3). In regard to

the Holy Ghost, Hermas being a prophet and a seer has no

doubt about His divinity. The Holy Spirit is the Son of the

Father (Simil. 5, s2,64> 7

; 9, i1) ;

He is anterior to any creature

(TO TrpooV, Simil. 5, 6 5; Tracr??? 7-7)5 /mVeco? 'TrporyevecrrGpos,

Simil. 9, i22), Himself Author of creation and, at the same

time, adviser of the Father in this act (Simil. 5, 65; 9, i22).

He dwelt in Jesus: He dwells likewise in the faithful (Simil. 5,

67). The author comes back often to this idea.

With the doctrine on the Holy Ghost angelology is con-

nected. That of Hennas is rather abundant, but it is not pre-

cise, and some scholars have asked themselves if it should not

be more severely characterized. Hermas distinguishes first

six principal Angels who build the mystical tower (Vis. 3, 41;

Simil. 9, i2 7 ' 8;

cf. 31)4

, 4*, etc.). In their midst there is a

man who rules over them and whose servants they are: heis the Son of God (Simil. 9, i2 7 ' 8

). On the other hand, several

times, mention is made of a most venerable and glorious

Angel, who seems to preside over others. In Command 5, i7,

HERMAS 117

he is said to justify (eSi/cawo^eraz/) those who do penance, andwe find him again in Simil. 5, 4

4; 7, 1-5; 9, i

3. Finally the

eighth Similitude tells us again of a glorious and most high

Angel, who gives to the people the rods detached from the

mysterious willow, and whose name is Michael (i2, 3

3). He

inserts the law into the hearts of believers, and visits them to

see if they keep it. Now, it seems that to these three per-

sonages: the Son of God, the most venerable and glorious

Angel, the Angel Michael, the same functions are ascribed

(Simil 8, 2 5, 3

5; 9, f>

2; 8, 3

3; 9, 5

2 ' 6 7,6s-6

,io4). Hence, are

they to be identified, and must we believe that, in those pas-

sages, Hermas has confounded the Angel Michael with the

Son of God, viz., the Holy Ghost? To affirm it is rather diffi-

cult, because the language in which the author expresses his

thoughts lacks precision. That he has confounded the HolyGhost with the first Angel, the most venerable Angel, seems

not improbable; that he has confounded Him with Michael, is

more doubtful; he seems rather to oppose one to the other in

the eighth Similitude, s2 ' 3

.

Hermas speaks often of the Church. She it is, who has

shown herself to him in his first visions, under the features of a

matron (Vis. 2, 41

; 3, u, 12, 13), and whom he depicts under

the figure of a mystical tower (Vis. 3, 33

;Simil. 8, I3

1); but in

this latter case, the author designates, not the Church militant,

the corpus mixtum made up of the just and of the wicked, but

the Church of the predestined and of the just. The Church,

he tells us, has been the first of all creatures (jrdvroov irpwrri

eVn'o-0??) ;for her the world has been made (Vis. 2, 4*; cf. Vis. i,

i6) ;

she is built on the Son of God, as on a rock, and belongs to

Him as to a master (Simil. 9, i2lf 7f 8).

Then, in the Church upon earth, Hermas distinguishes the

TrporiyovjAevot, (Vis. 2, 26

), viz., presbyters who preside, with

whom he must read his book (Vis. 2, 43) ,and who sit down the

first (Vis. 3, i8). A little further, ol aTroVroXot, /cal

n8 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

teal SiSdo-KokoL real Sid/covoi, are mentioned, some of whomare already dead, others still living (Vis. 3, 5

1

); then, after,

rjryovfjLevoi and TrpatTo/caOeSpiTai,, whose office consists in

teaching and training (Tra&eveiv) the elect (Vis. 3, Q7 ' 10

).

Deacons and overseers are again mentioned in the ninth Simili-

tude, 262, 27

2. These various functions, some of which resemble

one another, refer us to the organization we shall find, thoughmore precise, in the Didache. Hennas does not state the rela-

tion he establishes between the overseers and the presbyters,

though we must notice the mention he makes of a certain Cle-

ment to whom he must deliver a copy of his book and who will

send it to the other cities (ek ra? e|co TroXet?), and thus fulfil

his function (e/ceiva <y&p eViTerpaTrrai, Vis. 2, 43). Is this

Clement the illustrious bishop of Rome, from whose reputation

the author wished to derive some profit? Perhaps so, but weare not sure of it. The Grapte to whom Hermas must also

give his book, and who teaches the widows and orphans (Vis.

2, 43), is probably a deaconess,

It is only through Baptism that we can enter into the

Church and be saved (Vis. 3, 35

;Simil. 9, 161'4 ' 7

). The neces-

sity of Baptism is such that the Apostles and teachers (StSaV-

/caXoi) who preached the Gospel had to go down to limbo,there to teach and baptize the just already dead (Simil. 9,

I6 5" 7). Baptism seems to be given ek TO ovo^a rov /cvptov

(Vis. 3, 73). Its effect is to make us die to our former life, that

we may live another life: he who receives baptism descends

into the water in a state of death and comes out of it in a state

of life (Simil. 9, I63" 7). Baptism is a seal, cr</>ayi9, the seal of

the Son of God (Simil. 9, i63 ' 4); that seal is broken by sin,

but can be repaired by penance (Simil. 8, 63).

As to the eschatological views of Hennas, they are rather

brief, for he is far more busy about correcting the present than

describing the future. Here below, the just and the wicked

are alike (Simil. 3), but, later on, in the future age, the dis-

HERMAS

crimination will take place (Simil. 4, 1-3). That future age is

to be preceded by great tribulations, probably by persecu-tions (Vis. 4, 3

6,25), but soon it will come (Vis. 3, 8 9

). The

destiny of the wicked will be terrible: the impenitent, sinners

and pagans shall be cast into the fire (Vis. 3, f\ Simil. 4, 4):those who have yielded to wicked desires shall die ek r^Xo?

(Command 12, 2, 3). Whoever, not knowing God, has done

evil, shall be judged e& Odvarov: but whoever, knowing Him,has done evil, shall be doubly punished and die forever

(aTToOavovvrai, elf TOP al&va, Simil. 9, i82). However, this

will not be the destiny of most men: Hennas thinks that the

majority of the Christians whom he knows shall be saved

(Simil. 8, i16

). The just receive crowns (Simil. 8, 2), are with

the Angels and enjoy everlasting life (Vis. 2, 2 7, 3

3; 4, 3

5). The

society of the Angels is reserved more particularly for the

apostles, the teachers of truth, the overseers and hospitalerswho help the poor, the widows and the servants of God (Simil.

9> *52, 27

3).

4. The Second Epistle of St Clement1

The very ancient homily known under the najne of the

second Epistle of St. Clement offers with the Shepherd of

Hennas such analogies of preoccupations and ideas, that wecan most reasonably refer both to the same time, if not to the

same surroundings. As the author is concerned chiefly about

exhorting the faithful to practise good works and to do pen-

ance, as a preparation for the judgment to come, the dogmaticmaterial of the Epistle is rather scanty.

At the very beginning, however, we find a categorical affir-

1 HAGEBIANN, Ueber den zweiten Brief des Klemens wn Rom, in the Tkeolog.

Quartalschrift, vol. XLIII, 1861; A. HARNACK, Ueber den sogn. weiten Brief

des Klemens an die Korinther, in the Zeitschr. fur Kirchengeschichte, vol. 1, 1876-

1877; H. HEMMER, Cltment de Rome, Paris, 1909, in the series Textes et

Documents,

mation of the divinity of Jesus: "Brethren, we ought so to

think of Jesus Christ as of God as of the Judge of the living

and the dead" (i1)1- The words of Jesus in St. Luke, 6s2 ' 35 are

quoted with the formula Xe^et 6 0<fe, in chapter i34. In chap-

ter Q5, we are told that Christ was first spirit, then became

flesh and thus called us (<ov i^ev TO nrp&rov Trvevfia eryevero

(rdpg ). In this flesh, He has much suffered for us (i2); He is

our Saviour, the author of incorruptibleness, through whomthe heavenly truth and life have appeared to us (so

5;

cf. i7).

With Jesus, our homily closely associates the Church. In a

passage peculiar (I41" 5

) and difficult to interpret perhaps,

because the text is corrupt the author sets forth what fol-

lows. The Church is prior to the creation of the sun and the

moon: she was first spiritual and invisible: now, she has be-

come visible: she is the flesh, the spouse of Christ for the

spouse is the flesh of the husband (Ephes. } s28 ' 29

) ;she is also

His copy, for the flesh is the copy of the spirit, and Jesus is

spiritual (rrvevpaTucfa). This being the case, the Church be-

comes, in some way, one with our own flesh, so that, when wedefile our flesh, we defile also the Church, and lose at the sametime the possibility of sharing in the Spirit that is Christ. It

must be confessed that this reasoning which I have tried to

unravel is quite complicated and seems to betray the ten-

dency of the Gnostic school of Valentinus to represent Christ

and the Church as heavenly eons, and their relations as rela-

tions of sex. Perhaps, however, this teaching ought to betaken as nothing but a too literal interpretation of the pas-

sages of the Epistle to the Ephesians, i4,i22 '

, s23 ' 38

. Theauthor seems, as Hennas did, to confound Christ with the HolyGhost: still, this point is too uncertain to be insisted upon.

Baptism is a seal (o-^payfe, 76

,86

), which we must preserve

pure and untainted, if we wish to obtain life and escape the

1'A5eX0oi' otfrws'Sei fazs Qpovew irGpl'Iijffov xpwrov <*>s nepl 0eoO, Js vepl

icpirov tyvrw /cat pe/cpwy.

SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. CLEMENT 121

pains of hell (69, y

6). We keep it, by fulfilling God's com-

mandments. The document we are now studying is mostdear and earnest on the necessity of good works and their

efficacy for salvation (i3 ' 5

, 33 * 4

, 43

, 5*'6

,67 > 9

,84

,n 6 '

\ if,

ig3) : they are the compensation (avripiaBia) we make to Jesus

for what He has done for us (i3) ; moreover, the document in

question admits a penance for the sins that are committed (81>2

)

and to which &^ri%ta prompts us (n 5, ig

2). This penance,

likewise, is a compensation (avniuvQ to) for what we owe to

God (g7 ' 8

) . The author says nothing of its external conditions :

however, he points out almsgiving as the chief work of penanceand the principal means by which sin is remitted (KOV^KT/JLO,

a/ja/mas): it is preferable to fasting, which itself is better

than prayer (i64).

As to the separation of the just from the wicked, it will take

place on the day of judgment (ly4" 7

,i82). The body shall rise

and be judged (n1"4

) ;the disobedient, condemned to everlast-

ing punishments (67, 7, i5

5, if). Those, who, in their words or

conduct, have denied Jesus,, shall be cast into the horrible tor-

ments of a fire that cannot be extinguished (i77). On the con-

trary, the just shall be happy: they shall enjoy the repose of

the kingdom and of eternal life (s5) : their blessedness shall be

unmixed and everlasting (ig4), the crown of their sufferings

and labors (y2 ' 3

,2o2), and the reward (TOP jjuaffdv) of their

firmness in well-doing (n 5).

5. The Epistles of St Ignatius.1

Of all the Apostolic Fathers, St. Ignatius is most certainly

the one whose thoughts are the deepest. His teaching is not a

1 TH. ZAHN, Ignatius von Antiockien, Gotha, 1873; TE. DREEER, S. Ignatii

episcopi Antiocheni de Christo Deo doctrina, Sigmaringen, 1877; A. BRULL, Der

Episkopat und die Ignatianischen Briefe, in the Theol. Quartalschr^ vol. LXI,1879; J. VntscHL, Die Theologie des hi. Ignatius, Mentz, 1880; J. R^VTLLE,Etude sur les Origmes de FEpiscopat, Paris, 18915 VON DER GOLTZ, Ignatius


mere echo of what was believed around him, but betrays per-

sonal reflection and a conviction in some way reasoned out.

On the other hand, we should not expect to find in his letters

a complete theological system; they are writings composed

only for the occasion, whose content is determined by the state

of the Churches he is addressing, by his own state and also bythe character of the erroneous doctrines he is opposing.

Later on we shall see what these doctrines were; for the time

being, we may remark that this ere/ooSo^ia, as he terms it

(Magn.j 81), presented a threefold character: it fomented

schisms and parties outside the bishop; it extolled Jewish

practices and observances; it taught Docetism; perhaps too,

it preached immorality, more or less openly.

The teaching St. Ignatius opposes thereto bears chiefly on

the three following points: Christ, the Church, Christian

life. Christ incarnate: such is the centre of his theology;

Christ living in the Church and in each one of us, such is its

development.The unity of God is for Ignatius a primordial truth: "There

is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His

Son" (Magn., 82): nevertheless, he proclaims Jesus as God;

he knows and mentions the three divine terms (Eph., 9*;

Magn., is1

).

The Bishop of Antioch does not altogether pass by the doc-

trine of the Logos. Jesus, he says, is the Logos of God, come

von Antiochien als Christ und Theologe, Leipsic, 1894; E. BRUSTON, Ignaced'Antioche, ses ejfitres, sa me, sa theologie, Paris, 1897; A. STAHL, Patristische

Untersuchungen, Leipsic, 1901; A. LELONG, d*Ignace Antioche, Paris, 1910, in

the series Textes et Documents. Specially on the Epistle to the Romans: A,

HAENACK, Die Zeugnis des Ignatius tiler das Anschen des romischen Gemeinde,in the Sitzungsber. der K. preuss. Akad. der Vissensch. zu Bertin, 1896; J. CHAP-

MAN, 5. Ignace d'Antioche et VEglise romaine, in the Revue len&d., vol. XIII,1896; F. X. FUNK, Der Primat der romischen Kirche nach Ignatius und Ire-

naeus, in his Kirchengeschichtl Abhandl. und Untersuch., vol. I, Paderborn,1897; BATOTOL, VEglise Naissante et k Catholicisme, Paris, 1909, p. 167,foil.

ST. IGNATIUS 123

forth from silence to manifest the Father (\dyo$ airo cn,yrj?

7rpoe\6d>v, Magn., 82). Here the question is not about the

generation of the Son, but about His mission ad extra. This

Word, or rather Jesus Christ for this last appellation is the

one constantly used "was before all ages with the Father"

(Magn., 61). St. Ignatius often and unhesitatingly affirms His

divinity: Jesus Christ is God (fled? 'J^o-ov? Xpurrtk, Trail.,

71), the God (rov 8eov) who renders the faithful wise (Smyrn.,

i1): He is our God (6 8eb$ fjp&v, Ephes., Inscript, i5

3,i82

;

Rom., Inscript., 33

; Polyc., 83), the God of Ignatius (TOV Beov

pov, Rom., 63); His blood is the blood of God (ev a'i^an 6eov

Eph., i1) ;

He raised Himself up of His own power from the

dead (Smyrn., 21).1

What is far less apparent in our Epistles supposing that

it can be found at all is the mention of the divine and eternal

sonship of the Word, independently of the Incarnation. The

holy Martyr seems rather to ascribe the divine sonship of

Jesus to the fact that Mary conceived by the operation of the

Holy Ghost. Thus, by opposition to His birth from the

Virgin, Jesus is called ayevvyTos (Eph., 72). A descendant of

David according to the flesh, He is "Son of God according to

the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin" (Smyrn., i1) ;

again: "Of the race of David according to the flesh, He is the

Son of man and Son of God" (Eph., 2o2).

This generation of Jesus Christ according to the flesh con-

stitutes the ol/covoiJLia (Eph., i82), the human manifestation

of God (ffeov avOpcoirivG)? fyavepcopevov, Eph., IQ31). Ignatius

discards absolutely the conceptions that would deny the

Davidic descent of Jesus, or His being a man as we are, of our

race (Rom., f-, Eph., ig3

,2o2

; Smyrn., i1): he affirms Mary's

1 We may place side by side with these texts of St. Ignatius the admission

made by Christians, which is reported by Pliny the Younger in his letter to

Trajan (Epist., X, 97), written about 112-113, that they used to gather on an

appointed day and sing a hymn to Christ as to a God "wrmenque Christo quasi

Deo dicere secwn iwnc&m"


true and absolute maternity: Jesus is e/c Ma/Ha? teal e/c 0eov

(Eph.j 72), yeryevrjfjLdvov a\7)0& e/c irapdevov (Smyrn., i

1

);

but he maintains just as strongly at the same time the

mother's virginity in His conception (Eph., f, i82: Smyrn., i

1

).

The virginity and childbirth of Mary, and the death of Jesus

have been concealed from the prince of this world: they con-

stitute the three mysteries of preaching, that have been pre-

pared in the silence of God (Eph., ig1}.

As we may easily imagine, if the Bishop of Antioch rejects

anything ever so little incompatible with the real birth of

Jesus ex Maria, he opposes with still greater energy, if possible,

the Docetism of the false teachers who transform into a mere

appearance the Saviour's humanity. Jesus Christ, he says, is

"truly (a\r)0w} come from the race of David according to the

flesh . . . truly born of a virgin ... He was truly nailed for

us in His flesh under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch"

(Smyrn.y i1 - 2

). "He suffered truly, as He also truly raised

Himself up and not, as some unbelievers say (pretending)

that He only seemed to suffer (TO Sotcelv), they themselves

only seeming to be" (Smyrn., 2). And then, Jesus did not layaside that flesh after His resurrection : "I know," Ignatius de-

clares,"that even after His resurrection, He was in the flesh,

and I believe that He is [still] so. And when He came to those

who were with Peter, He said unto them: Take, handle me,and see that I am not an incorporeal genius. And straightway

they felt Him and believed, having been in contact both with

His flesh and spirit. . . . And after His resurrection, He did

eat and drink with them, as He was flesh; although as to His

spirit He was united to the Father"

(Smyrn., 3).

St. Ignatius marks very clearly then, both the divinity andthe humanity of the Saviour; and hence he gives Him at the

same time and by opposition human and divine attributes. Inthis regard, chiefly two passages have drawn the attention of

scholars.

ST. IGNATIUS 125

The first is in the Epistle to the Ephesians, f: "There is

one physician, both corporeal and spiritual, begotten and Tin-

begotten, become God in the flesh, true life in death, [born]

both of Mary and of God, first passible, then impassible, JesusChrist our Lord." *

The second is in the Epistle to Polycarp, 32

: "ExpectHim, who is above all time, the eternal, the invisible, for

our sakes visible, the impalpable, the impassible, for our

sakes passible, who has suffered in all manner of ways for

our sakes." 2

Some scholars (Harnack, Bruston) have sought to invalidate

the witness of these texts in behalf of the divinity of Jesus, byreferring the contrary attributes therein mentioned, not to a

twofold element, divine and human, existing simultaneously

in Jesus, but to a twofold successive state of the Saviour. Ac-

cording to Ignatius, Jesus, at first a mere man, would have

become God, and thus acquired in His glorification the divine

attributes. But the reasons brought forward for such an inter-

pretation are not conclusive, nor even always admissible. If

we remember that St. Ignatius most firmly maintains the pre-

existence of Jesus, and His divinity while upon earth, wecannot doubt the general meaning of these texts: in them the

Bishop of Antioch ascribes to the Saviour simultaneously the

qualities becoming a man, and those becoming a God.

According to the holy Martyr, the work of this Saviour is re-

duced chiefly to two objects: to bring us the knowledge of God,and to destroy death by bringing us life. Jesus Christ, who is

the thought, the sentence of the Father (rov Trar/oo? 3\ fyzw/^),

the truthful mouth by which He expresses Himself (Epk., $2;

tctTp6s tffriv, o-apKUcbs re Kal irvev/wm/efo, yewyrbs Kal dyfrviproSt & vapid

e6s, ev 6avdrq> fw^ dX^flwTj, Kal K Ma/j/as Kal jc 0eov, Trp&rov iratiyrbs

Kal TOTS diraO'/jS, "I^ous "Kpurrbs 6 Ktipios yfjiGv.2 T6v Mp Kaipbv 7r/xxr56/ca, rbv axpovov, rbv &6parov, rbv 5c' -fyuas 6par6v, rbv

a\j/7)\&(j>7jTovt Tbv airadrij rbv &' fyuas iraByrbv, rbv Ararat iravra rpbirw fit'

Rom., 82), has become for us the knowledge of God and our

only teacher (rov ffeov yvwm, Eph., if, is1

; Magn., 9*).

Moreover, in manifesting Himself in a human guise, Jesus in-

tended to do away with death (Oavdrov jcard\v(ri<i) and re-

place it by the newness of eternal life (efc Kaworyra al&Cov

0979, Eph.j i93). This life consists for us in the spirit of the

Cross (n-vevpa rov crravpov, Eph., iS1) : it comes to us from the

death of Jesus Christ, as the fruit of His blood that was shed,

of the blood of God (Eph., i1

; Magn., 9*). The author does

not say anything more as to the way in which he understands

redemption; though, in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, gl,

he sets before us Jesus as the apxiepevs, to whom alone the

mysteries of God and the Holy of Holies have been entrusted,

as "the Door of the Father, by which Abraham, and Isaac,

and Jacob, and all the Prophets enter in, as well as the Apostles

and the Church." Through Him the whole world comes to the

Father, so that in definitive,"Christianity did not believe in

Judaism, but Judaism did believe in Christianity, in which are

gathered all those who believe in God" (Magn., io3).

Every Church is the house of theHeavenlyFather, His family

(Eph., 61). Christ's head was anointed with perfumes (Matt.,

267), in order that He might communicate incorruptibility to

the Church (a<j>0ap<7i'a, Eph., i?1

): the context shows that

reference is made to doctrinal incorruptibility. St. Ignatius is

the first author who applies to the Church the title of /ca6o\t,Ktf :

"Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the peoplealso be; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church"

(Smyrn., 82). However, some have thought that, by this ex-

pression, Si. Ignatius meant simply the collection of all the

particular Churches bound together by relations of mutual

help and charity. Anyhow, our author thinks certainly, that

the Church must be universal, catholic, viz., embrace all

mankind, for Christ, he says, "has set up, through His res-

urrection, in all ages, the standard for the saints and for His

ST. IGNATIUS 127

followers, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of

His Church" (Smyrn., i2).

But what Ignatius is anxious to find in every Christian con-

gregation, is chiefly unity. He knows the dangers to whichthe churches of Asia Minor are exposed because of coteries andheresies: hence he adjures them to gather around the Bishop,the presbyterium and the deacons, as the centre of that unity.He is the first author in whom we find set forth, quite clearly,

the monarchical episcopate, viz., the supremacy of the bishop,and in each Church, the supremacy of one bishop over the

body of priests (the presbyterium) and the deacons.

Very often (cf. above all, Philad., 4), he regards these three

orders as forming, in regard to the faithful, a whole, the ruling

members of the Church, whom they should obey; though,now and then, he sets apart sometimes the first two orders

(Epk., 22,2o2

; Magn., 2, 71; Trail., i3

2), sometimes too the

first order alone, as representing in the Church the authorityto which all, even priests, ought to submit: "It becomes youto go according to the will of the bishop, as also ye do; for

your famous presbyterium, worthy of God, is attached to the

bishop as the chords to the lyre" (Epk., 41). "It does not

become you to use your bishop too familiarly upon the account

of his youth; but rather, in consideration of the power of Godthe Father, to pay him all reverence, as I heard that the holy

priests do; for they do not take advantage of his youth in this

high position; but, being prudent in God, they submit to him,

or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, to the

bishop of all" (Magn., 3*; cf. Trail, i22). The bishop is the

centre of the Church: where he is, there also the communitymust be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Church

(Smyrn., 82;

cf. Smyrn., n 1

; Polyc., 41). In this hierarchical

trinity: bishop, presbyterium, deacons, the bishop takes the

place of God the Father, priests represent the Apostolic College,

deacons, Jesus Christ (Magn., 61; Trail, 3*; Smyrn.f

81),


an arrangement which first may surprise us, but which may be

accounted for, if we remark that the author considers Jesus

as the Father's minister (&a/eoz/o9), and deacons as exercising

the haKovia'Irjcrov Xp^ToO (Magn., 61). Besides, St. Igna-

tius states most clearly the inferiority of deacons in regard to

priests (Magn., 2): they are always mentioned in the third

place.

What are the duties of the faithful towards these guides of

the Church? Primarily and essentially, there is only one

obligation: to remain united with them in sentiments, faith

and obedience. Ignatius does not allow that in any case Chris-

tians can part from the authority in their views or conduct:

they must be subject to the bishop, the presbyterium, the dea-

cons (Epk., 2*, 53

,2o2

; Magn., 2, 31

,61 ' 2

,i3

2; Trail, 21 '

2,

i32

; Philad.y 71

; Smyrn., 81; Polyc., 61

): nothing must be

done in the Church without them (Trail., 22

, 72

; Philad., f:

Smyrn., 81; Polyc., 4

1). More particularly, Jesus Christ being

the sentence of the Father, and bishops who live upon earth

being in the doctrine of Jesus Christ (ev 'Irja-ov XpLcrrov jvca/ty),

it is proper to share the bishop's doctrine (Epk., 32

, 41). By

remaining united with Jesus and the bishop, and by followingthe Apostolic commands, we shall feed on Christian food andabstain from that foreign plant, that is heresy (Trail., 61

; 71).

Then, those who are of God and of Jesus Christ are with the

bishop: schismatics shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven

(Philad., 32 ' 3

). Moreover, the bishop is not only the doc-

trinal and disciplinary centre of the Church, but also the

liturgical centre thereof: "Let that Eucharist be looked uponas legitimate (fie/SaCa) which is offered by the bishop or by himto whom he has given his consent ... It is not lawful, with-

out the bishop, either to baptize or to celebrate the agape (orthe Eucharist) : whatsoever he approves of, that is also pleas-

ing unto God; that so whatever is done may be firm andvalid" (Smyrn., 81 - 2

;cf. Polyc., 5

2).

ST. IGNATIUS 129

Now, among those Churches thus conceived and organized,does Ignatius distinguish one of a superior authority? Theaffirmative seems to result from the inscription of his Epistle to

the Romans in which, though, he does not mention the

bishop. Not only he multiplies, in behalf of the Church of

Rome, the terms of praise, but he designates her as presidingin the place of the country of the Romans (#w teal 7rpoicd67]-

rat, ev TOTTO) 'xjapiovc

P<0ytwuW), as worthily chaste and presidingover charity (afydayvos ical irpofcadrjiJievi] T?}? aydTrys}.

What is the bearing of these expressions? We may remarkfirst that, in the first text, the words h TOTTO* KT\., do not meanthe limits of the presidency of the Roman Church, but the

place where it is established and exercised : Trpo/cdd^raL is in the

absolute mode: at this time there is no question of the Romanpatriarchate or of suffragan Churches: the Church of Romepresides, and the seat of this presidency is the city of

Rome, ev TOTT^J x&piov *~Pa)jj,ai&v. On the other hand, the ex-

pression aydTrr), of the second passage,mightverywell designatethe Christian brotherhood in general, the Christians them-

selves. The word is taken in a concrete sense four times at

least in St. Ignatius (Trail., 13*; Rom., 9*; Pkilad., n2;

Smyrn., I21), and most probably, too, in Rom., g

1. We would

have then here a testimony in behalf of the Roman primacy;

though, on the other hand, Ignatius does not state whether he

ascribes it to the political importance of the city of Rome, or to

the person of the founder of her Church.

Among the Sacraments, the Bishop of Antioch notes first

Baptism, which he merely mentions (Polyc., 22; Smyrn., 82

;

cf. Eph., i82) . On the Eucharist, he is more explicit. We may

observe that he uses already the word vi

xapi<rria to designate

the consecrated elements themselves (Smyrn., 71). But "from

the Eucharist and prayer [heretics] abstain, because they do

not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus

Christ, which has suffered for our sins and which the Father

has raised up from the dead in His kindness" (&a TO

\oryeiv rrjv ev^apicrrCav crdpfca elvai rov (rarfjpos qfji&v

X/o<rro{), rrjv virep rwv apapritov fjp&v iraOovcrav KT\., ibid.}.

Writing to the Ephesians (2o2), he recommends to them union

with the bishop and the presbyterium, "breaking one and

the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the

antidote that we should not die, but live forever in Christ

Jesus." The first of these texts implies in St. Ignatius a real-

istic view of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Still, that we may not exaggerate its bearing, we should re-

member that the heretics to whom the author was alluding

were docetse, and held apart their meetings (cf. 81). Then,

addressing the Romans (73), though he does not speak directly

to the eucharistic body and blood of Jesus, the holy Bishop

evidently borrows from this mystery his expressions and

images:"I take no delight in the food of corruption, nor in the

pleasures of this life: I desire the bread of God which is the

flesh of Jesus Christ [born] of the seed of David: and the drink

that I long for is His blood which is incorruptible charity."l

The Eucharist is the symbol and bond of union amongChristians: "Let it be your endeavor to partake all of one

Eucharist, for there is but one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ,

and one chalice in the unity of His blood, one altar, as also there

is one bishop with the presbyterium and the deacons" (Philad.,

4). Elsewhere he speaks also of those who are within or out-

side the altar, viz., of those who are pure or impure, in con-

nection with the submission to the bishop, priests and dea-

cons (Trail., 72).

Marriage itself is placed under the bishop's supervision: it

must be contracted with his agreement (perk 7^/^979 rov

eTrur/eoTTov) ,that thus the wedding may be according to the

Lord, and not according to passion (Polyc., 52). Moreover,

1 Or "the incorruptible Eucharist, dyd-jry 00apros," according to the

meaning which St. Ignatius seems to give to the word ayd-try in Smyrn., 82,

ST. IGNATIUS 131

Ignatius advises the keeping of perfect chastity, if it can be

done, for the honor of the Lord's flesh: but at the same timeone should live in humility and not believe oneself, because of

the practice of this virtue, superior to the bishop: otherwise

one is lost (ibid.}.

The picture which the Bishop of Antioch sets before us of

the life and organization of Churches is completed by what he

says of Christian life in each one of the faithful in particular.He represents it most assuredly just as he conceived it andstrove to live it himself, in the ardor of love and eagerness for

martyrdom, that were in his soul. Jesus Christ is its principleand centre. He is our life, not only in as much as He broughtus eternal life, but also because, dwelling personally in us, Heis in us a true and indefectible principle of life (TO aSLa/cpcrov

fifjL&v ty\v, TO Sia Travrb$ fjp&v f>)z/, TO a\rj9ivbv fip&v $?z/, efe TO

akri8ivbv tyv, Eph., 32,n 1

; Magn., i2;

cf. 15; Smyrn., 4*; cf.

Trail, 92) . He dwells in us and we are His temples: He is our

God within us (Eph., i53

;cf. Magn., 12, 14; Rom., 63

). Hence

the title of 6eo(j)dpo$ assumed by Ignatius himself in the title

of his Epistles, and the names of 0o<f>dpo^ vaocfrdpoi, %picrro-

<$>6poi, dyuxfrdpoc he applies to the Ephesians (p2) : hence, too,

the union with the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, with the

Father and Jesus, that he wishes to the Churches (Magn., i2).

The condition and, at the same time, the expression of that

life of Jesus in us are faith and love: "Nothing shall be hid

from you, if you have perfect faith and charity in Christ

Jesus, which are the beginning and end of life: the beginning is

faith, the end, charity (apx^ p<ev W&TO, Te'Xo<? Se ayaTn?) : these

two joined together are God Himself; all other things are the

consequences of these for a holy life" (Eph., I41). "That

which is all, is faith and charity, than which nothing is more

precious" (Smyrn., 61;

cf. Philad., 92

; Eph., g1). Ignatius goes

so far as to say that he who professes faith does not sin, just

as he who possesses charity does not hate (Eph., i42), and

probably in the same meaning too, he affirms that "they that

are of the flesh cannot do the works of the Spirit, nor they that

are of the Spirit, the works of the flesh; as faith [cannot do

the works] of infidelity, nor infidelity, those of faith. Those

things that you do according to the flesh are spiritual, since

you do all things in Jesus Christ." (Eph., 82).

This charity, so intense in the heart of the Bishop of Antioch,

leads him also to the love of sufferings and to the thirst after

martyrdom: on this topic the classical passages of the Epistle

to the Trallians (> 2), and chiefly of the Epistle to the Romans

(41; 5

2f 3arL(i passim), are well known. But it inspires him too

with accents of an impassioned mysticism: "My love is cruci-

fied and there is no fire in me for what is material; but there

is a water living and speaking that says to me interiorly:

Come to the Father" (Rom., 72).

These sufferings Ignatius knows shall be rewarded. While

false teachers and they that listen to them go to the eternal

fire (ek TO rirvp TO acfteo-Tov, Eph., i62) unless they repent and

Ignatius thinks they shall repent with difficulty, though JesusChrist can change them (Smyrn., 4*; cf. Eph., lo1

; Phttad.,

32) ,

the martyrs go to God (Eph., 212). God shall raise up in

Jesus all those who believe in Jesus (Tratt., 92). The greater is

the suffering,, the greater will be the reward (OTTOV trKetov

/COTTON, TToXtr jdpSo?, Polyc., i3), and our good works are like de-

posits we shall find again (Polyc., 62). The prize here proposedis incorruptibility and life everlasting (TO Oepa a<p6apcia /cal

0)77 awowo?, Polyc., 2s),

6. The Epistle and the "Martyritim" of St Polycarp. Papias.

The only Epistle of St. Polycarp that we possess is closelyconnected with the Epistles of St. Ignatius, which it men-tions (i3

2). It is scarcely anything more than a moral exhor-

tation, of the same kind as St. Clement's first Epistle, that sets

ST. POLYCARP 133

before us clearly enough what were the topics of preaching in

those distant ages. However, in it we find also some dogmaticelements.

As St. Ignatius and St. John in their Epistles, the authoraffirms most emphatically against the Docetse the existence

of a real body and of real sufferings in Jesus (y1). Moreover,

Jesus Christ, he says, was holy, and still He has borne for usour sins on the cross; He died for our sins, and thus has be-

come our hope, the pledge of our justice (i2

,81

). The Son of

God and eternal Pontiff, now glorified at the Father's right

hand, He will be, one day, the judge of mankind (2*, 62,i22).

Away with the tyevSoSiSao-KaXta that denies the resurrection

and the judgment; he who holds that teaching is the first-

born of Satan (71 ' 2

).

We are saved by grace, by the will of God, not by our

works (%cpm . . . OVK eg epjcov^ a\\a 0e\tfftari 0eov Stcb 'lya-ov

Xpurrov, i3) ; nevertheless, if we wish to rise and rule with

Jesus, we must walk in the precepts of God and live in a

manner worthy of Jesus Christ (22

, 52). Faith is followed by

hope, but preceded by charity towards God, Jesus Christ and

the neighbor; any one who practises these virtues has fulfilled

justice (32 ' 3

).

As regards the ecclesiastical hierarchy, Polycarp supposesmost clearly it consists of three degrees. In chapter 61

,he

tells us of the virtues to be practised by priests (Trpea-fivrepoi),

and in the inscription of his Epistle, he associates with him-

self those of his Church. Likewise, in chapter 52,he speaks

of the deacons and of the qualities required from them.

Priests and deacons we must obey, as we would God Him-self (5

3).

Richer in doctrinal data is, in certain respects, the relation

of St. Polycarp's martyrdom, that was sent by the Church of

Smyrna to that of Philomelium, in the year which followed his

I34 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

death (155-156). Chapter i43 contains a precise trinitarian

doxology. Polycarp concludes his prayer by glorifying not

only the Father through the Son, but also the Son Himself and

the Holy Ghost: Si? ov (jraiSds) oral crvv avr& /cat TrvevpaTi dyca*

Soâ KT\. Jesus Christ is the irate 0eoO, 7rafc povoyevrj? deov

(14*'3,2o2

, liturgical formulas) but also vibs rov Oeov, whom weadore (irpoa-icvvoviiev) whereas the martyrs are only loved (i7

3).

He is the heavenly and eternal Pontiff (i43) ;

He died for the

salvation of all the elect, He, innocent, for sinners (iy2).

The author of the Martyrium already regards the Church

catholic as forming a whole: his relation is addressed "to the

Church of God that sojourns at Philomelium, and to all the

communities (Trapoi/eto) of the holy and catholic Church

in every place" (Subscript., cf. 81, i9

2). We may remark,

however, that the epithet /caOo\LK^ is given to the Church of

Smyrna taken by itself (i62).

Christians ought not, of their own accord, to offer them-

selves to the persecutors and to martyrdom: this the Gospeldoes not advise (4); but they must, when the opportunity

presents itself, bear courageously tortures inflicted on them,in view of the blessings in store for those who suffer with

patience. For, with one hour of sufferings, they may free

themselves from an everlasting chastisement, from the eternal

fire reserved to the wicked (23,n2

): while, at the same time,

they become worthy of the resurrection of the body and soul

unto eternal life, the crown of immortality (i42, 17*, ig

2).

But the most important dogmatic passages of the Mar-

tyrium are, assuredly, chapters 17 and 18, which refer to the

relics of St. Polycarp. We find clearly pointed out therein

(i) the difference between the worship paid to Jesus Christ

(a-^ftea-Oai) Trpo^/cwovêv) and the love shown for the Saints

and their relics (aâir&êv) ; (2) the care to collect the re-

mains of martyrs and the honors rendered to these remains;

(3) In fine, the celebration of the dies natalis of the confessors

PAPIAS 135

of the faith, and the gladness brought about by the memoryof their triumphs.

Of Papiasx we have only a few fragments, the chief of which,

for our purpose, is the one given by St. Irenseus (Adv. haeres.,

V, 33, 3, ff.)- Papias describes therein with "naivete" and in

realistic colors the wonderful fecundity of the earth duringthe future reign of Christ in this world: for, from Eusebius

(Hist. eccLj III, 39, 12), we know that the Bishop of Hierapolisadmitted a dominion of Jesus Christ upon earth, for a thou-

sand years, after the resurrection of the dead. We have

already noticed the regard Papias had for oral tradition;

moreover we may notice also his testimony on the redaction

of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark: a testimony to

which critics have paid much attention (EUSEBIUS, H. E., HI,

39, 15, i6)./-

7. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.2

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is a kind of catechism

for the use of the faithful, which is clearly divided into three

parts: a moral part (1-6), a disciplinary part (7-15), and an

eschatological part (16).

"Two ways there are one of life, the other of death, butthere is a great difference between the two" (i

1). Such is the

beginning of the Teaching. Then, chapters 1-4 expose what

ought to be done or avoided to remain in the way of life; chap-ter 5, what constitutes the way of death. We may notice

1 E. H. HALL, Papias and Us Contemporaries, Boston, 1899.2 O. KNOOP, Der dogmatische Inhalt der Atfaxty rw &6$ei diro(rr6Xwv, Posen,

1888; C. TAILOR, An Essay on the doctrine of the Didache, Cambridge, 1889;E. JACQUEER, La doctrine des douze Apdtres et ses enseignements, Paris, 1891;

V. BEESENTHAL, Die urchristliche Kirche in Lehre und Lelen nach der AiSax^r. & d. . . ., Insterburg, 1893; O. MOE, Die AposteUehre und der Dekalog im

Unterrichte der alten Kirche, Gutersloh, 1896; H. HEMMER and others, La Doctrine

des Apdtres, Paris, 1907, in the series Textes et Documents,

10

chapter 414

: "In the Church thou shalt confess

thy sins, and shalt not come forward to the prayer with an

evil conscience;3 '

in chapter 62 ' 3,we find also an allusion to

the Evangelical counsels (cf. i4) and the prohibition to eat

meats offered to idols.

In the disciplinary section, ecclesiastical rites and functions

are treated. Baptism must be preceded by a moral instruction

given to the catechumen (71) : it is administered efe TO ovopa rov

7rarpo9 /cal TOV vlov /cal rov dyiov irvevparos (y1 ' 3

), though

chapter Q5speaks of those who are baptized ek ovofja /cvpiov.

Cold spring-water, or in its absence, stagnant or warm water is

used (y1 ' 2

). If the amount of water does not suffice for im-

mersion, water will be poured (e'tf%eoz>) three times on the

head in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the HolyGhost (7

3). Before Baptism, both he who administers it and

the candidate to be baptized ought to fast, as well as other

persons too, if possible (y4).

The fourth and sixth days of the week are fast-days (81).

The prayer prescribed is the Pater, three times a day (82 ' 3

).

The Eucharist is spoken of in the Didache certainly in chap-ter 14, probably also in chapters g and -lo.

1 The word ei%a-

picrria surely designates the sanctified material elements (95), as

the word K\d<rfjia, designates both the breaking of the bread

(g3) and the broken bread itself (g

4). The liturgical formulas

of chapter 9 contain neither the narrative nor the words of

the institution of the Eucharist; and in verses 2 and 3, thanks-

giving for the cup is placed before that which is said over the

yeXoo>ta, though in number 5, first the eating, then the

drinking of the Eucharist is mentioned. In these formulas and

1 Several scholars are inclined to see in the whole of these two chapters orin a part of them a regulation of the agape. P. LADEUZE, L'Eucharistie et Usrepas communs des fdtles dans la DidacJte, in Revue de VOrient ckr&ien, 1902,PP- 3393"3SQ;

FmK Patres Apostolici, vol. I, p. 22, note. Cf. BATOTOL, Stttdes

d'Eistoire et de Thfokgie Positive, ist series, Paris, 1904, pp. 294, foil.

THE "TEACHING" OR "DIDACHE" 137

in those of chapter 10, Jesus Christ is called irals dtov (g*>3,

io2 ' 3); the breaking of bread is set forth as a symbol of the

gathering of the members of the Church into God's kingdom(p

4); the Eucharist is called a spiritual food and driiLk (io

3),

which only those who are baptized can receive,"for in regard

to this the Lord hath said: Give not to dogs that which is

holy (g*).

In chapter 14, though mention is made of the breaking of

bread only, there is no doubt that this expression designatesthe whole eucharistic liturgy (cf. Acts, 246

,so 7 ' u

;i Corn io16).

There we read that the giving of thanks must be preceded bya certain confession of sins (

x) and that enemies must be recon-

ciled, before they take part in the meeting (2). The liturgical

service takes place chiefly on Sunday.Twice also, as has been already seen, the Didache speaks of

confession of sins (414

, I41), but without indicating its precise

nature and form; though it implies that this form has a certain

official character (ev eK/c\i)a-(a, 414).

As regards the ecclesiastical ministry, our document dis-

tinguishes five orders of persons by whom it is exercised: the

apostle (cwroWoXo?), the prophet (TT/JOC^TT??), the teacher

(SfcScfcr/eaXo?), the overseers (eTrtWoTrot), the deacons (Sidfcovoi):

nowhere is mention made of Trpeo-ftvTepoi.

The apostle is the missionary always travelling, going from

one community to another, or preaching the Gospel to the

heathen. He must be welcomed as the Lord Himself (n4),

but he must stay in the community only one or two days (n5),

and, when he leaves, receive only the bread sufficient to sus-

tain his life until the next stop (n6)-

The prophet is he who speaks and teaches in Spirit (\a\&v

Iv Trvevfjian, u7 ' 8). If he has been tried already and ac-

knowledged truthful, he shall not be tried again nor judged,

even supposing that b.e does things the meaning and purpose

of which escape our knowledge (ii7>u

); otherwise, he shall


be known and judged from his works (i i8"12

) . The Teaching as-

signs to prophets the first rank in importance among the

Church ministers: it places them on the same level as the

High Priests of the Old Law (apxiepek vft&v) and grants

them as such the right to receive the first fruits of everything

(iS3" 7

)? moreover, it supposes that such dignitaries were not

found in all Christian communities (i34).

The teacher (SiSaoveaXo?) had probably for his function to

instruct the faithful; but, differently from the prophet, he did

not speak in Spirit; his knowledge was an acquired knowledge,

and his words had to be prepared. He also was subject to a

trial (n1 ' 2

; i32).

After the apostles, prophets and teachers, the Teaching

mentions the overseers and the deacons. The place where

they are mentioned immediately after what pertains to the

Sunday liturgical service and the particle oZv (15*) which

joins what is said of these ministers to what precedes, show

that they are considered, in the document, as ministers of the

breaking of bread, which the author has just spoken of. Every

community ought to choose for itself from among the virtuous

men, overseers and deacons, who may fulfil the functions of the

prophets and teachers, and must be honored, just as theyare (15*'

2).

As we have said, our document concludes, in chapter 15,

with an eschatological instruction. It reproduces fairly well

the details of the Synoptists and St. Paul: the uncertainty of

the hour of the Lord's coming (*2) ;

the signs that herald this

advent (3>4

); the apparition of a seducer as Son of God (4);

the scandalizing of many (5) ;

the preliminaries of the parousiaand the resurrection of the dead (

6), not indeed of all, but of

the saints only (7), and finally the apparition of Jesus Christ

on the clouds of heaven (8). Thus ends the Didache: it

gives no more details as to the state of the just and of the

wicked.

EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 139

8. The Epistle of Barnabas.1

The Epistle of the Pseudo-Barnabas, which seems to comefrom a man of mediocre ability, is divided into two rather

unequal parts: the first, from chapter i to chapter 17; the

second, from chapter 18 to chapter 21. This last section,

bearing exclusively on moral topics, reproduces quite closelythe exposition of the Two ways we have found in the Didache.

The first is a defence of Christianity or rather a bitter attack

upon Judaism and its observances. Not only does the author

present these as the figure and preparation of the New Law,which were to disappear when it came; he affirms, moreover,that the literal sense in which they were understood by the

Jews was by no means the one God intended, even immedi-

ately. Thus it is only of a contrite heart and of aversion to

evil, of the mortification of the senses and passions, that the

bloody sacrifices, fasts and circumcision prescribed by the

Law should be understood (24"10

, 31' 5

, 9). This is the deeper

knowledge, the gnosis (yz><H<w), which the Jews did not pos-

sess, deceived as they were by a wicked angel (69

, 13*, 94). The

method is easily recognized: an exaggerated allegorism

turning against Judaism that very Law which made its

glory.

In this- strange writing, doctrinal elements are rather few.

Some however, which are connected with the author's stand-

point, are worth mentioning. The Pseudo-Barnabas is quite

affirmative on the preexistence of Jesus Christ: to the Lord,

to the Son, the words were said by the Father, in the begin-

1 O. BRADTSTSBERGER, Der apostel Barnabas, sein Leben und der ihm beigekgte

Briefe, Mentz, 1876; D. VOLTER, Der Barnabasbrief neu untersucht, Jakrb. /.

protest. TheoL, vol. XIV, 1888; P. LADEUZE, UEffire de Barnabe, Louvain,

1900; V. DOLTER, Die apostolischen Vdter neu untersucht, I, Leyden, 1904 ;

H. HEMMER and others, Effire de Bwnabe, Paris, 1907, in the series Textes et

Documents,

i4o THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

ning: "Let us make man to our image" (s5,612

). This Son

has appeared in the flesh, which was a veil quite necessary:

otherwise, men, who cannot fasten their eyes on the sun, a

work of His hands, would have been unable to contemplateHim directly. He is not the Son of man, but the Son of Godmanifested in figure in the flesh (TVTTavepo)9ei<i),

and as later on Christ was to be regarded as the son of David,David himself declared beforehand that He was not his son,

but his Lord (?, is 8 ' 10 ' 11).

The purpose of the coming of Jesus Christ was twofold:

to fill up the measure of the Jews' sins (s11 ' 12

) and to redeem us.

This redemption (Xvr/wtro, i46) He accomplished by giving

up His flesh to destruction, by offering it up as a sacrifice

(irpoc^epeiVj 6v<ria9 by sprinkling us with His blood (5*,

73 ' 5

). Its result has been to remit our sins, destroy death and

bring about resurrection from the dead, to quicken us and

make of us a new nation, a holy people, the heir of the prom-

ises, instead of the Jewish nation (s1 ' 6j 7

, 72, 13, I4

4- 6, 4

7) 8).

We enter into the participation of this redemption, by Bap-tism which brings to us the remission of sins: "We descend

into the water full of sins and stains, and we come out of it

bearing fruits, having in our hearts the fear, and in our minds

the hope, in Jesus" (nUf1 ' 8). In keeping with the Two

ways, a confession of sins is mentioned in chapter ig12

:

efo/4oXo7??oT7 eTrl djAapTicu? <rov.

The Epistle of Barnabas tells us, in chapter i68 ' 9,what is

the new life to which Baptism begets us: "By the remission

of sins that we receive, and the hope in the name [of the Lord]we become new, being wholly created again. This is why God

truly resides in us, in our dwelling. How? His word of faith,

His calling, His promise, the wisdom of commands, the pre-

cepts of doctrine, He himself prophesying and dwelling in us,

opening the door of the temple,viz., the mouth, to us who are

given up to death, all this inspires us with penance and intro-

EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 141

duces us into the incorruptible temple." As to good works,the author proclaims unhesitatingly their necessity for sal-

vation. Of course, the New Law is avev &yov avdfymf: (with-out the yoke of necessity), and in opposition to the sacri-

fices of old, its sacrifice is ^ avdp&irotyros (not made byman, 2 6

) ; still, we ought to work with our hands (faa x&p&vffov) for the redemption of our sins (ig

10). "He that shall

fulfil these [commands of the Lord] shall be glorified in the

kingdom of God; he that shall depart from them shall perishwith his works. Hence the resurrection, hence the retribution

"

(avTaTToSopa, 2I 1;

cf. 412

, igu). To some, eternal life; to

others, eternal death in the midst of torments (85

, 20*).

The thought of the judgment is one of the chief motives of

honest living, invoked by the author of our Epistle, and wefind in his work, not only preoccupation about the last day, but

also interesting calculations. Sometimes he seems to regard

the end of the world as very near (43,2i3

;cf. f>

8)*); but in

chapter is4" 9

,he gives us precise computations. The six days

of creation represent 6,000 years, for one day of the Lord is of

1,000 years (cf . Ps. go4

;2 Pet., 3*). Hence the world must last

6,000 years, most of which is already past. On the seventh day,

viz., at the beginning of the seventh thousand years, the Son

of God shall appear; He shall destroy the time of the impious

one (rov icaipbv rov avopov) viz., of Antichrist and judge

the wicked (cf. 7*). This will be the signal of rest. Every-

thing being renewed, the just shall sanctify the seventh millen-

nium with Christ; though this sabbath, itself shall be only

the preparation for the eighth day that shall mark the begin-

ning of a new world. This is why we spend in joy the eighth

day, the day of the resurrection of Jesus,

THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

9. The Symbols of Faith.1

In order to complete this study of the state of theology dur-

ing the first half of the second century, we must add a few

words on the Symbols of faith then acknowledged.

It is natural that there should have existed very early a short

formula, easy to remember, that would sum up the teaching of

apostles and catechists, and was to be repeated by the can-

didates, before they were admitted to Baptism.

Some scholars are inclined to see vestiges of it in i Cor., is3 ' 4

;

i Tim., 613;

2 Tim., 22

' 8, 4*. But more worthy of attention

are the passages to be found in some writers of the second cen-

tury, that seem to be traces of a symbol, or at least to recall

fixed formulas of Christian preaching and faith.

To begin with, the East, such are the texts of Origen, of the

presbyterium of Smyrna, of Aristides and of St. Ignatius,

gathered and republished by Hahn in his Bittiothek der Sym-

1CASPAEI, Queften zur Geschichte des Tauj

f

symbols, Christiania, 1866; C. A*

SWAINSON, The Nicene and Apostles3

Creed, London, 1875; J- R- LUMBY, The

History of the Creeds, 2nd ed., London, 1880; C. A. HEURTLEY, A History of the

earlier formularies of faith of the Western and Eastern Churches, London, 1892;TH. ZAHN, Das apostolische Symbolum> eine Skizze seiner Geschichte und sein

Inhalt, Mentz, 1893; C. L. BLUME, Das apostolische Glaiibensbekenntniss. Ein

apologetisch-geschichttiche Studie, Friburg, 1893; KATXENBTTSCH, Das apostolische

Symbol, Leipsic, 1894; A. HABNACK, Das apostoUsche Glaubensbekenntniss.

Ein geschichtlicher Bericht nebst einem Nackwort, 27th ed., Berlin, 1894; J.

KUNZE, Glaubensregel, Heilige Schrift und Taufbekenntniss, Leipsic, 1899;A. E. BUKN, An Introduction to the Creeds and to the Te Deum, London, 1899;H. B. SWETE, The Apostles' Creed, its relation to primitive Christianity, 3rd ed.,

Cambridge, 1899; E. VACANBARD, Les Origines du Symbole des Apdtres, in theRevue des Questions Historiques, vol. LXVI, 1899; W. SANDAY, Recent Researchon the origin of the Creed, in the Journal of Tlwl. St^^dies, vol. I, 1899-1900;A. G. MORTIMEE, The Creeds. An historical and doctrinal exposition of the

AposUes' . , . Creeds, London, 1903; R. SEEBERG, Das EvangetiumLeipsic, 1905; P. BAOOTOL, article Attires (Symbok des) in thede Theokgie cathotiyue, vol. L

SYMBOLS OF FAITH 143

bole,1

i, 2, 4, 8. Several authors have drawn the conclusion

that, even in those remote times, the East possessed a symbolnearly determined, and they have added that this symbol, in

use at the beginning of the second century, or even at the endof the first, especially in Asia Minor, had passed from that

country to Rome, where it had, if not become the very formula

of the symbol called of the Apostles, at least influenced its

redaction. But this theory is far from being unanimouslyaccepted. Among the arguments urged against it, the follow-

ing fact has been brought forward. Those Eastern confes-

sions of faith, previous to the Council of Nicaea, that we have

now, those of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Arius, Alexander

of Alexandria, of De recta in Deum fide (Hahn, 14, 15, 185-

186) offer, on the contrary, among themselves, a diversity

of arrangement, which cannot be accounted for, in the hy-

pothesis of a fundamental type common to all. It is only after

the Council of Nicaea that Eastern Symbols set forth in their

composition the same order: an order that reminds one of

that of the Apostles' Creed;which proves that, instead of being

exported from the East to Rome, that symbol had rather been

imported from Rome to the East at the time of the great con-

troversial struggles raised by Arianism.

Then, was there, in the second and third centuries, any bap-tismal formula generally adopted? Certainly there was, and

scholars have pointed out, as a text that probably was used for

the redditio symboli a short formula the trace of which is found

in the nineteenth catechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem and

which can be reduced to the following terms: Tlurreva) efc . . -

ical efe rbv vldv, teal e/9 TO irvevpa TO ayiov, real ek %v

ei$ afacw apapTi&v.

In the West, things are far clearer. Even in the middle of

1 A. HAHN, Bibliothek der Symbok und Glwbensreieln der alien Kirche, $rd ed,,

Breslau, 1897.


the second century, we meet with a fixed formula that has beencalled the Symbol of the Apostles, and is nothing else than the

baptismal symbol of the Roman Church.1

The oldest Greek text that we have of it is the one repro-duced by Marcellus of Ancyra in his letter to Pope Julius anddates from about the year 337 ;

2 the oldest Latin text is con-

tained in an Explanatio Symboli ad initiandos to be found

among the works of Maximus of Turin, which has been attri-

buted by some to St. Ambrose (+397), by others to St. Nicetas

of Romatiana in the fifth century (Hahn, 34) ;or again in

the Commentaries in symbolum apostolorum of Rufinus (about

400, Hahn, 36). Rufinus states 3 that the Church of Romehad, from the very beginning, preserved this text unchanged,while the various Churches (of the West) had made a fewadditions thereto: this last assertion is confirmed by facts

(cf. Hahn, 37, foil.)-

In the fourth century, about.the year 337, the formula of the

Roman Symbol was, then, settled; but from the fourth

century, we may go back as far as the end of the second

century, for in his Adversus Praxean (2), De praescriptionehaereticorum (13), and chiefly De velandis Virginibus (i), Ter-tullian gives us under the name of regula fidei, manifestlyas to the substance, the order and even the wording, the Sym-bol of the Apostles, such as Rufinus knows it afterwards

(Hahn, 7) .

Moreover, if we take into account the similarities that canbe shown to exist between this formula and some texts of St.

1 ST. IRENJJUS, Ado. haeres., I, 9, 4: 00 ft ml 6 riv KW&O, rfy dX^ffdf&K\LVTI h &vr$ Kdrtyw, 3*> 5i& roO BaTrrtV^ros rfX^e (In like manner he alsowho retains unchangeable in his heaxt the rule of the truth, which he receivedby means of baptism.)

2 ST. EHPH., Haeres. LXXH, 3; Hahn, 17.8Op.mt.; P. L., XXI, 339.

4Besides, Tertullian remarks that the African Churches had received from

Rome the tessera of faith (De prescript., 36).

SYMBOLS OF FAITH 145

Justin and St. Irenaeus two Westerners by adoptionthat seem to reproduce something of it (Hahn, 3, 5); if

we notice too the lapidary style and the forcible brevity of

its composition, the absence, in its wording, of any allusion to

"the prevailing heresies of the second century, we shall admit

undoubtedly that the Roman Symbol is coeval at least with

St. Justin, we shall even place it still earlier, viz., about the

beginning of the second century.At that epoch, what was its precise tenor? We can deter-

mine it only by approximation, by making use of subsequent

texts, while at the same time carefully setting aside from

these texts all that is not accepted nor confirmed by the mostancient authors. This method has led to the following text:

ILcrrevo) e& [&a] Qebv ((Trardpa)) TravTOtcpdropa, real efc 'I?;-

crovv 'Kpta-Tov TOV vlov avTov TOV icvpiov fjp&v, TOV yewyGevTa etc

TrapOevov, TOV e?rl THovTiov TLthdrov <7Tavpo>0eWa, ry rpirrj

fipepq avacTavTa etc vexp&v, avafidvra efc Tofa ovpavovs, /ca6^

/JLGVOV ev 8ef(a TOV TraT/505, 50ev epxerat, icplvat, %&vras /cal

ve/cpow, ical ek TO irveujjia aytov.

In this text, the word eva, which was dropped afterwards,

is part of the original formula: scholars suppose that it was

left out at the time of the Monarchian heresy, which it seemed

to favor. On the same occasion, too, according to some

critics, the word Trarepa was added, in order that the dis-

tinction between the Father and the Son might be more

sharply marked: however, this last hypothesis can be con-

tested. liaTepa is most probably primitive like eva and

does not designate the Father's person, but merely affirms

the universal paternity of God as Creator.

Before concluding this chapter, we may attempt to sum upthe results of this study on the Apostolic Fathers and the im-

pressions it leaves in our minds.

la these ekrly writinjgs, Christotogy obviously remains in


the path where it had been placed by St. John. God is one

and rules all things; but, beside the Father, Jesus Christ is

recognized, not only preexisting, but also God as the Father

is: this affirmation is veiled and obscured only in liturgical

formulas or in the confused sketches of Hennas. Again, alongwith Jesus Christ, we find the Holy Ghost whose divinity is

not directly stated, except perhaps in the Shepherd, in which

the act of creation is ascribed to Him.

Of man in the natural state, his primitive elevation and

fall, nothing is said. Nothing has been kept of St. Paul's sub-

lime utterances on the misery of man, but the sentiment of the

universality of sin, of the state of spiritual death in* which the

world lies, and of the necessity of a Redeemer.

This Redeemer is Jesus Christ. His twofold nature is indi-

rectly affirmed, the unity of His person rather supposed.Elements of Soteriology are drawn from St. Paul and from the

Epistle to the Hebrews. Jesus Christ is Priest, our Pontiff;

His death was a sacrifice; His blood, a ransom that redeems

us. But the effect of this redemption is not scientifically

determined. The more common view is that it destroys sin

and gives us the knowledge of the true God, life, immortality,and the hope of divine promises.

Individuals have a personal share in this redemption, andarrive at justification through faith and works. The two re-

spective views of St. Paul and of St. James are found, some-times separated, sometimes combined in the same author;but the latter, that of St. James, seems to be predominant.Moreover, this justification is set before us as an interior

renovation; the Christian becomes the temple of God and of

the Holy Ghost, or even, according to St. Ignatius, trulyanother Christ.

The concept of the Church in general remains almost whatit was in the Apostolic writings. The Church has replacedthe chosen people of old and is the assembly of the Saints, the

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 147

body of Jesus Christ. She is destined to comprise all men: she

is catholic. Her members are united by charity, by the

mutual services they render to one another, and also by the

identity of hope and faith. Then, in this vast society of souls,

there are various particular communities, and each one of these

communities consists of two parts: those who govern the

faithful, and the faithful thus governed. It is chiefly in this

point that the progress on the Apostolic period is noticeable.

Side by side with the travelling missionaries, the prophets andthe teachers, extraordinary ministers of the Gospel, who were

destined to disappear and seem to be unknown to St. Ignatius,

we find stationary ministers, connected with the liturgical

action of the breaking of bread: bishops, priests and deacons,the first two orders being first more or less confounded, then

clearly distinguished in Syria and Asia Minor.

One enters the Church through Baptism administered in

the name of the Trinity and for the remission of sins. The

liturgical service, whose arrangement too develops, comprises

prayer, offering and participation in the Eucharist. The latter

is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, a remedy of immortality.The first beginnings of canonical penance seem to be found in

Hermas and perhaps too, something of private confession in

the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas.

As to the precepts of morality a Christian ought to observe,

we find in these last two writings an exposition of them, which

has some claims to completeness. The virtues recommended

here and elsewhere are chiefly those virtues that are specifically

Christian, such as purity, chastity, humility, modesty, fear of

God, trust in His promises, charity, union with the brethren,

penance, whatever tends to keep the soul subject to God, and

preserve peace in the community. Among good works, fasting

and almsgiving are insisted upon. Moreover, Hennas gives a

few exhortations on voluntary virginity and widowhood and

even on continence between husband and wife.


One of the chief means to remain faithful to these precepts

is the fear of the judgment, the thought of Christ's parousia.

The conviction that this parousia is near at hand goes on de-

creasing in proportion 'as time elapses; still, it seems quite

strong in some of these early writers. Papias and the Pseudo-

Barnabas are millenarians; the others have discarded alto-

gether the ancient concept of God's kingdom: they have sim-

plified the eschatological crisis. All, however, have preservedthe resurrection of the body, the final judgment by Jesus

Christ, the everlasting torments of the wicked in fire, the

punishment for their misdeeds, and the life, everlasting too,

of the just with God the well deserved reward of their

labors. The supreme and final fruit of Redemption is repre-

sented in the form of aOavao-ta, of the far; al&nos.

This is what the texts tell us as regards the doctrine held bythe Christian Church, between the years 100 and 150. Still,

we should not forget that our texts do not tell everything, andthat consequently, that doctrine may have been far more full

than the exposition of it as furnished by them.

CHAPTER IV

THE FIRST DEFORMATIONS OF CHRISTIAN DOGMA THE HERE-SIES OF THE SECOND CENTURY

CHRISTIANITY came out of Judaism and spread into the

heathen world, so that, at the beginning, she found herself suc-

cessively or even simultaneously in contact with Jewish andwith Pagan doctrines and ideas. On the one hand, her breaJdngoff from Judaism did not take place without some rending:

many converts from this religion kept for the Law an attach-

ment that first brought about many a difficult situation andlater on, caused some of them to fall completely into error:

they are the Judaeo-Christians. On the other hand, amongthe Pagans who accepted Christianity, several, who hadtasted Philosophy and sought to penetrate the mysteries of the

world and of life, did not content themselves with translatinginto a more learned tongue the Gospel revelation; they forced

it into systems ready made, and foisted upon it a meaning

quite incompatible with its data: they were the Gnostics.

These two forms of error, Judaeo-Christianity and Gnosti-

cism, the result of the two kinds of surroundings in which the

Gospel arose and expanded, filled all the second century. Nay,

they are found in germ, even in the Apostolic time, strictly

so called. Ordinarily disunited, they joined forces sometimes,

especially at the beginning.

They typify, relatively to normal Christianity, and in oppo-site directions, two extreme tendencies it had to fight against;

relating to its dogma, two heresies which perverted the under-


standing of it. Them we are to study, and with them Mon-tanism and Millenarianism also, because, though these cannot

be regarded as their branches or offshoots properly so called,

still they and chiefly the latter, are somewhat connected in

their eschatology with Judaeo-Christianity.

i. Judseo-Christianity in the time of St Paul.1

The Judaeo-Christian error is naturally the first that wefind in history. Though, even during the lifetime of the

Apostles and in the picture thereof which their writings contain,

it presents itself to us in two shapes: one, exclusively Jewish,

Judaeo-Christianity properly so called; the other, alreadymixed with foreign philosophical elements, Judaizing Gnosti-

cism whose existence we ascertain chiefly in the province of

Asia. We shall take up one after the other.

Jesus had said that His personal ministry was confined to

the sheep of Israel, that had perished (Matt., io6), and as a

matter of fact, the Gospel was preached first to the Jews alone.

Should it be preached to the Gentiles also? All know how a

series of providential and miraculous circumstances led the

Apostles to solve the question in the affirmative: 2 a solution

which history tells us was rather disliked by the circumcised

Christians of Jerusalem.3 The opposition increased, when the

question came up as to whether or not the new converts from

Paganism should be dispensed from legal observances. AJudaizing party, whose dealings-are described in the Acts (n 1 ' 2

;

cf.M) protested energetically against the dispensation. Men

1DTTCHESNE, Les Origines Chritimnes, Paris, chap. 4; Histoire anc. de VEglise,

vol. I, chap. 3; LIGHTFOOT, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, London, 1892;also, the commentaries on the writings mentioned. [Duchesne's Histoire hasbeen translated into English.]

HERESIES OF THE SECOND CENTURY 151

without any appointment false brethren, as St. Paid calls

them (Gal., 24) went, from Judaea to Antioch and disturbed

the community, by affirming that without circumcision, the

Christian Gentiles could not be saved. The "council" of

Jerusalem (Acts, is5"34

) pronounced against them. However,

they did not lose courage: a third time, they strove to pre-serve at least the essence of the Law, by forbidding the associa-

tion of circumcised with uncircumcised Christians, and main-

taining for the former the barriers that were to isolate themfrom the latter. As St. Paul tells us, some Christians of Jeru-

salem, who were no strangers to James (rivfa cvjrb 'la/ec&jSov)

came to Antioch, and, by their very presence, intimidated St.

Peter, so that he consented to an unfortunate dissimulation;

for which he was rebuked by St. Paul: this is what has been

called the conflict of Antioch (Gal., 2U~14).

In this last passage James is named. Is he the Apostle, the

son of Alpheus? We are not certain about it. Had he himself

sent these Christians of Jerusalem? St. Paul does not say.

Anyhow, we should not wonder if this old man, who, from the

testimony of St. Epiphanius,1 was then from 85 to 88 years

old, and had never left his Palestinian surroundings, had not

fully realized the situation at Antioch and judged things not

exactly in thesameway as did Peter and Paul. But what is cer-

tain and remains well established is this: there is at Jerusalema party that works at keeping up, as much as possible, the

Jewish observances in the midst of Christianity, a partywhich is Judaeo-Christian not merely in its origin, but also in

its doctrine and tendencies.

Its members looked upon St. Paul as their chief enemy:hence we see them do their utmost to thwart the Apostle's

missionary work and ruin everywhere his authority. At

Corinth, they organize a "coterie," the party of Christ, of

which St. Paul says little in his first Epistle to the Corinthians,

* Haeres. LXXVm, 14,


and a great deal in the second (i Cor., i12 ' 13

;2 Cor., io7

-i2).

They are, he tells us, Jews, children of Abraham, who boast of

their nationality and of the circumcision of their flesh (n18

^22),

and oppose to his ministry that of the Apostles by excellence

(ii5

,I2

11

).St. Paul does not record anything precise as to

their doctrine, but he frankly deals with them as false apos-

tles, deceitful workmen disguised in the shape of apostles of

Christ (i i13

).Among the Galatians, the same impostors are

more successful: urging them to the practice of the Law (Gal.,

421

, 51-4

), they prevail on them to adopt circumcision (Gal. 9

5s- 6

,612"15

) and to observe days, months, times and years

(Gal) 49il

). St, Paul has to interfere, in the severe tone

which we know. Then, when at the Pentecost of the year 58,

he comes back to Jerusalem after his third mission, of course

the brethren rejoice; however, there is a question which pre-

occupies the elders gathered at the house of James. They tell

the Apostle he is accused of turning away the converted

Jews from the fulfilment of the Law, while those of Jeru-

salem are zealous for it. Hence they advise him to do awaywith the slander by showing himself also faithful to its prescrip-

tions (Acts, 2 117'24

). The sequel is well known. St. Paul arrives

at Rome as a captive, but his adversaries do not let him go,

and later on he will complain that there are some who preachChrist indeed, but with the purpose to stir up some tribulation

against him then in prison (Philip., i15"17

).

Such is the Judseo-Christian party whose centre is at Jeru-salem. Among those who compose it, there must have been

most certainly a great diversity of views, which will increase

during the second century, when we shall study it again. Wemust now take a glance at the province of Asia,


3. The Beginnings of Judaizing Gnosticism. The Nicolaitans.

Cerinthus.1

The first forms of the error in the province of Asia are knownto us through five groups of documents : St. Paul's Epistle to

the Colossians3the Pastoral Epistles (the Epistle to Titus being

written especially for Crete), the second Epistle of St. Peter

and that of St. Jude,2 the Epistles and Apocalypse of St. John,

finally the Epistles of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp which formthe connecting link between the New Testament and Eccle-

siastical History strictly so called.

In the Epistle to the Colossians, written during his cap-

tivity (58-63 ?), St. Paul speaks explicitly of false doctrines

that endeavor to penetrate into their Church: "Beware lest

any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit, accordingto the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world,

and not according to Christ"

(28). In fact these errors proba-

bly tended to lower Jesus Christ and place the Angels above

Him: these are the object of a special worship (218); and this

is why the Apostle is intent on extolling the Saviour's dignity

and presenting Him as the principle and end of creation (i15"17

,

cfr18 '20;29 ' 10

;cf. Eph., 612

). We know that the Angels playedan important part in Jewish Theology; but moreover and

this is a rather characteristic feature the doctors opposed bySt. Paul prescribed a choice among the different kinds of food

and insisted on the keeping of new moons, festivals and sab-

baths (216 ' 20-22

). They taught a humility

1 DUCHESNE, Les Origines ChrStiennes, chap. 5; Hist. anc. de VEglise, vol. I,

chap. 6; and the other works mentioned at i. [Duchesne's Histoire has been

translated into English.]2 Though there is the greatest obscurity as to the origin, date and addressees

of these two documents, we may, after Mgr. Duchesne (Qrigines Chr&tiennes,

p. 46), place them side by side with the Pastoral Epistles, to which they are

related. Cf, also Duchesne's Histoire anc. de I'Eglise, vol. I, p. 76 [English

trans., p. 56.]


and a contempt for the body, that were not right (218>23

).

Perhaps too, we should add circumcision, which is mentioned

in chapter 211 . At any rate, the error, thus described by the

Apostle, was most certainly judaizing.

The Pastoral Epistles, written a few years later, depict it

in stronger and more precise terms, either because the error

itself had expanded or because St. Paul, addressing those whowere his disciples, thought himself more free to pass judgment

upon it. Anyhow, he names its leaders, Hymenaeus, Alexan-

der the coppersmith, and Philetus (i Tim., i20

;2 Tim., 217

, 44).

Its partisans are recruited from the circumcised, many of whomare "disobedient, vain talkers, and seducers . . . who must

be reproved" (Tit., i10 ' 11

). As to their doctrine, it consists

chiefly of long discussions on genealogies without end, and of

foolish fables (i Tim., i4, 4

7) ; trifling questions are their de-

light; they quarrel among themselves about the words and

meaning of the Law (i Tim., 63- 5;

2 Tim., 214

; Tit., 39); they

praise highly Jewish fables, human traditions (Tit., i 13> 14),

so many blasphemies and devilish doctrines (i Tim., i20

, 41).

More especially, the Law is greatly extolled and those whoextol it wish to be regarded as its doctors (i Tim., i

7). Some

kinds of food are placed under the ban, and marriage for-

bidden (i Tim., 43). These heretics proclaim that the resur-

rection has already taken place: which means that there is

only a spiritual resurrection (2 Tim., 217 - 18

). Moreover, their

morals are just as bad as their theories. These false doctors

are seeking only for gain (i Tim., 6 5"10; Tit., i

11); under ap-

pearances of piety they have all kinds of vices (2 Tim., 31' 5

).

They seduce women, always curious (2 Tim., 36"7

), and per-

haps on their account several young widows have departedfrom the right path, to follow Satan (i Tim., 5

15). "They

profess that they know God, but in their works they denyHim, being abominable, and incredulous and to every goodwork reprobate." (Tit., i

15i

16).


It is easy to recognize, in this graphic description, a doctrine

which is certainly a compound of Judaism and incipientGnosis. The forbidding of marriage and the denial of the res-

urrection of the body are not Jewish features: they comefrom another philosophy.

1

We find similar errors described in the second Epistle of St.

Peter and in that of St. Jude. The heretics denounced in these

documents present striking analogies with those of the Pastoral

Epistles, though it is not said that they were Judaizers. First,

these heretics, we are told, "deny our only Master and Lord

Jesus Christ" (Jude, 4); they despise authority, /cvpiorij?

(2 Pet., 210; Jude, 8), a word which, perhaps, must be trans-

lated in the concrete meaning by "the Lord" Then theyrevile the "glories" (Sogas ov rpejjiovcrw /SXacrt^o&'Te?,2 Pet., 2

11; Jude, 8), viz., probably the more perfect spirits they

introduce into their mythical combinations, and into the

fables skilfully framed of which mention is made in 2 Pet.,

i16

. Finally they deny the judgment and the Lord's coming

(2 Pet., 3s" 7

)- As to their morals, they are simply infamous:

covetousness, lying, excessive eating, haughtiness, a passion

for coteries are their least defects (2 Pet., 23 ' 11 ' 13

; Jude, n,16, 19). These men are theorists of vice, who think only of

impurity, and blaspheming what they ignore, are corrupted

like beasts, in what they know naturally (2 Pet., 210 ' Ui 14;

Jude, 4, 10) . Woe to them, for the most awful punishments are

in store for them (Jude, n).We may now consult St. John. Here again, there is a great

deal of obscurity as to the place of composition, the date and

1 On the other hand, it seems that those scholars are mistaken who are in-

clined to see in the "genealogies without end" mentioned in the Pastoral

Epistles, the Gnostic genealogies of Eons, and thence to infer the unauthentic

character of these Epistles. Probably allusion is made to the fabulous patri-

archal genealogies to be found in some Jewish Apocryphals. Cf . E. JACQTJIER,

Histoire des Limes du Nouvew Testament, vol. I, 3rd ed., p. 375. [English

translation, pp. 264-265].


addressees of his first two Epistles, the only ones with which

our researches are concerned. Yet, it is probable that they

belong to the last period of the Apostle's life and were written

at Ephesus, the first for the neighboring Churches, the second

for some person or particular Church. At any rate, St. Johndeclares most plainly that, at the time when he writes, there

are several antichrists, who have come from the ranks of

Christians (i John, 218 ' 19). These heretics deny that Jesus is

the Christ and the Son; hence they do not possess the Father

(i John, 2fflf M, 4

3> 15) . They deny also that Jesus is come in the

flesh (i John, 42 ' 3

)- According to them, the Saviour, then,

would be but a superior spirit, who would be neither the Son,

nor the Christ, and have a body in appearance only; or even,

more plainly, Jesus would be but a man, and any idea of the

Incarnation of God's Son or Christ would be set aside. Such

views are either Docetic or Ebionitic, and imply, in any case,

the denial of Jesus Christ's divinity. Of their morals, the

Apostle says nothing.

In its turn the Apocalypse condemns, on one hand, a class

of people who pretend, and falsely, to be Jews, and form a

synagogue of Satan (29, 3

9), on the other hand, a sect which

is styled of the Nicolaitans and is said to exist in the Churches

of Pergamus and Thyatira (214-16

,

2 -25)- These Nicolaitans

have a doctrine, the depths of Satan (ra ftaQea TOT) Saram),according to their own words : but they teach chiefly unchas-

tity (TTopveCa) and the lawful eating of meats offered up to

idols (214)15t2

). Must we identify these two groups, the

Nicolaitans and the synagogue of Satan? Probably not, for

the latter seems to be made up of Jews who are not Christian.

In any case, the history of the Nicolaitans is not over withSt. John. St. Irenaeus, who sums up the data of the Apoca-lypse by the words indiscrete vivunt,

1 adds that, before Cerin-

1 Adv. haeres., I, 26, 3; cf. CLEMENT OF ALEX., Strom., H, 20 (P. G., VIII,1061); TERTTTLL., Adv. Marcionem, I, 29; the Philosophoum&na, VIE, 36; the

PSEUDO-IGNATIUS, Trail, n, 2; Pkilad., 6, 6.

thus, they had extinguished the demiurge from the supremeGod, and calls them a "fragment of the false Gnosis." Ter-

tullian associates them with the Cainites of his time.1 As to

the authors who follow St. Hippolytus, viz., the Pseudo-

Tertullian, Philastrius and St. Epiphanius,2 the Nicolaitan

system, as they expose it, is an Ophite system which most cer-

tainly is not the primitive type.

Whence did those heretics get their name? According to1 St. Irenaeus, it is derived from the deacon Nicolas (Acts, 65

),

who would have been their leader.3 Clement of Alexandria

does not deny this relation, but he explains it by a misun-

derstanding: Nicolas, whose life in the state of marriage was

exemplary, used often to repeat, it seems, as a maxim and in

an encratite meaning, that flesh is to be abused (irapaypricavOat,

777 <rap/cfy, viz., to be mortified, which his disciples would have

understood, on the contrary, of an absolute license to be grantedto it: hence their immorality.

4

With the memory of St. John is also connected the memoryof Cerinthus, whom the Apostle met at Ephesus, according to

St. Irenseus.6 We have about him no contemporary witness.

He seems to have been a native of Egypt, and a Jew, if not bybirth, at least and chiefly by religion. Afterwards he came to

Asia and met St. John there. His system, as St. Irenseus ex-

posed it at the end of the second century,6 is this. Over all

things, a supreme God; far below Him, a demiurge who ig-

1 De Praescript. kaeretic., 33.2PSEUDO-TERTULL., Adv. omn. kaeres., 5; PHELAST., De haeres., 33; ST.

EHEH., Haeres. XXV, XXVI.3 Adv. haeres., I, 26, 3.4Strom., in, 4 (P. G., VIII, 1129); cf. EUSEB., H. K, HI, 29. It is only

later on that the deacon Nicolas was distinguished from the leader of the

Nicolaitans (CASSIAN, Collat. XVIII, 16).5 Adv. haeres., HE, 3, 4; cf. EUSEB., H. E., IV, 14, 6.

6 Adv. haeres., I, 26, i, reproduced word for word by the Pkttosoph., VTI, 33,

and with some additions and variants, by the PSEUDO-TERTULL,, 10; PHELASTR.,

36; ST. EHPH., Haeres. XXVIIL


nores the supreme God, and creates the world. Jesus was

born, as ordinary children, of the intercourse of Joseph and

Mary; however, he is superior to other men in justice, pru-

dence and wisdom. After his baptism, a heavenly being, the

Christ, coming from the supreme God, descends upon him in

the shape of a dove. He is then capable of announcing the

supreme Father, so far unknown, and of working miracles.

But, at the end, the Christ who, in as much as He was a spir-

itual being (7n/ev/ian/ecfc), could not suffer, abandons Jesus.

The latter dies and rises alone. St. Irenaeus says nothing of

the ethics of Cerinthus, which, according to Philastrius and

St. Epiphanius, was distinctly judaizing. He admitted, they

say, the Law in part, circumcision and the sabbath. He re-

jected St. Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, and from the Gospels,

kept only that of St. Matthew, from which, moreover, he re-

trenched the genealogy of Jesus Christ. The priest Caius and

Dionysius of Alexandria formally accuse him of having taughta gross millenarianism.1

In the system of Cerinthus thus set forth, the mixture of

Gnosis and Judaism is evident; but it would be rash to affirm

that we really find, in Philastrius and St. Epiphanius, or even

in St. Irenaeus, his own original views. On the other hand, the

Epistles of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp impart to us, on the

errors that were current in the province of Asia at the begin-

ning of the second century, the testimony of contemporaries,and their testimony is quite valuable.

The doctrine of the false teachers is styled by St. Ignatius

heterodoxy (erepoSof;to), a foreign herb to be shunned.2They

themselves are deceivers, who, though they speak of Jesus

Christ, extol Judaism, the Sabbath, and antiquated practices.3

Moreover, they are docetse; they do not admit the reality of

1EUSEB., H. E., Ill, 28, 2, 4, 5; cf. VII, 25, 3,

2Eph., 7

1; Magn., 81

; Trail, &.8

Troll, e2; Ma$n., 81

, 91,id2 ' 3

j Philad., 6.


the Saviour's flesh and mysteries.1 In consequence, they

abstain from the Eucharist which they do not believe to bethe Lord's flesh,

2 and deny the resurrection as well as the

future judgment.3 Of their morals, St. Ignatius says nothing

precise, except that they have no charity for the poor and

needy, and are constantly ready to foment coteries andschisms.4 Elsewhere, he denounces them as hypocriticalwolves that captivate the faithful through wicked pleasure

(jjSovrj /cafcy, Philad., 2 1), and he advises these to keep their

body as the temple of God (ib., 72). Must we see in these

words an allusion to the immorality of the heretics? We can-

not say.

At any rate, the general impression derived from this studyis clear. As described in the second half of the first, and at the

beginning of the second century, by St. Paul, St. Ignatius andSt. Polycarp, heresy associates, in Asia Minor, Judaism with

Gnostic conceptions. Cerinthtts presents the same character.

As regards the writings of St. John, the second Epistle of St.

Peter and that of St. Jude, they do not mention, at least ex-

plicitly, in the false doctrine they are stigmatizing, the Juda-

izing tendency; but besides that divergences must have natu-

rally existed, we should not forget that, chiefly for the last two

documents, we do not know exactly where those lived whomthey are addressing and of whom they are speaking.

3. Judseo-Christianity in the Second Centuxy.5

We have seen how there existed, from the very beginning,

in the Christian Church of Jerusalem, a party strongly at-

1Trail., 9, 10; Smyrn., 1-6; POLYC., ad Philip., 7

1.

2Smyrn., 7*.

8POLYC., ad PhiUp., 7

1; cf. Smyrn., 7

1'2.

*Smyrn., &, 8; Epk., s

2 ' 8; Mag., 4

1; PhOad., 2*; 3*'

8, 4

1,etc.

5 DUCHESNE, Origims Chrttiennes, chap. 10; Hist. anc. de I'Eglise, vol. I,

chap. 9; HTLGENTELD, Die Ketzergeschichte de$ Urchristentums, Leipsic, 1884^

HILQENPELD, Jud&nfam wid Jttdenchristmtum, Leipsic, 1886; LTJCTUS, JD&


tached to legal observances, and anxious to maintain their

practice, at least for the Jewish converts. The events that

preceded the ruin of the city by Titus in 70, contributed to

increase that regrettable tendency. As early as the year 68,

the Christians left Jerusalem and fled beyond the Jordan, to

Pella, in the kingdom of Agrippa II, whence they spread gradu-

ally into the neighboring territories. Here, in the isolation

in which they found themselves, their narrow particularism

did but increase. At the same time doctrinal divergences

took place among them, divergences which divided them into

several groups less sharply distinguished, indeed, than the

following exposition will show, though these can be really dis-

tinguished one from the other.

First there were a Nazarene group, that kept, with a strong

attachment to the Law and its prescriptions, the essential

points of Christian faith, and an Ebionite group that com-

pletely fell into heresy. For the sake of clearness, I designate

by these terms the two sections of the ancient Church of

Jerusalem, though in practice the use of these terms was indis-

criminate.1Then, among the Ebionites, some came in con-

tact with the Essenes, and from this contact arose perhapsat the beginning of the second century the variety of

Ebionitism which is set forth by the Clementine apocryphalsin the third century and described by St. Epiphanius in the

fourth (Haeres. XXX). Finally on this Essene Ebionitism,there is grafted the particular sect of the Elkesaites.

Essenismus In seinem Verhaltniss zum Judenthum, Strasburg, 1881; J. LANGEN,Die Klemensromane, Ihre Entstehung und ihre Tendenzen aufs neue untersucht,

Gotha, 1890; C. BIGG, The Clementine homilies. Studio, Uttica et ecclesiastica.

n, Oxford, 1890; F. W. BUSSELL, The purpose of the world process and the prob-lem of evil as explained in the Clementine and Lactantian writings: Studia libl.

et eccles., Oxford, 1896; H. WAITZ, Die Pseudoklementinen Homilien und Rek-

ognitionen, Leipsic, 1904. [Duchesne's Histoire lias been translated into

English.].1 ST. JEROME, Epist. 112, ad Augustinum, 13. Cf. HABNACK, History of

Dogma, vol. I, p. 300, text and note 4 (Lehrb, der D G., I, p. 285, text and note 3).


Thus, as far as we can judge, the ancient Church of Jerusa-lem became divided at the beginning of the second century,first into Nazarenes and Ebionites; then from the latter camethe Essene Ebionites, a particular branch of whom was called

the Elkesaites.

What was the doctrine of these various groups?It does not seem that, except in their overgreat attachment

to the Law and their most assuredly too narrow conception of

the Gospel in general, the Nazarenes differed, in their belief,

from the other Hellenic Churches. St. Jerome, who became

acquainted with them at Beraea (Aleppo), declares to St.

Augustine in his letter 112, 13, "that they believe in Christ,

the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under

Pontius Pilate, and rose: in whom we believe also." He adds

it is true that, by endeavoring to be at the same time

Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor the other:

dum volunt et iudaei esse et christiani, nee iudaei sunt nee chris-

tiani; but what hinders them from being Christians, is onlytheir obstinacy in living according to Jewish ways; for St.

Jerome also says elsewhere that they did not reject the ApostlePaul.1 We may go a little farther back. Hegesippus, the

author of the Memoirs, seems to have been a Christian of that

group.2

Still, about the year 150, he goes on a journey to the

West and enters into relations with many bishops, particu-

larly with those of Corinth and of Rome: he examines the

doctrine taught in the churches and finds it in accordance with

his own, "in keeping with what is preached by the Law, the

Prophets and the Lord." 3 If we remark that at the very time

1 In Isaiam, lib. Ill, cap. DC, i (P. L., XXIV, 125). These Nazarenes

seem to be referred to by St. Epiphanius, Eaeres. XXDC, i, 7-9. Though he

declares them to be Jews and nothing else (7), still the details that he gives prove

just the contrary.2EUSEB., Hist. Eccles., IV, 22, 7; cf. Sx. JEROME, In Ezech., Lib. IV, cap.

XVI, I3 (P. L., XXV, 137).*EUSEB., H. E.

t IV, 22, 1-4.


when Hegesippus wrote (about 180), St. Irenseus represented

the Ebionite sect as altogether heretical,1 we must admit that

the Judaeo-Christians did not belong to it. Finally, in his

Dialogue with Trypho (47), St. Justin tells us of Christians who

accept all the Gospel, but who remain attached to the Law of

Moses. He personally believes that they can be saved and

must be regarded as brethren united by the bond of Chris-

tian fellowship, provided they do not pretend to impose uponGentile Christians these same observances. However, his

sentiment, he says, is not shared by all, and there are some

Christians who do not mix with them. Then, at number 48, he

mentions again Jews by birth (n^e? airo rov v^repov ryeVov?),2

who admit the messiahship of Jesus, but not His divinity;

an opinion, he goes on to say, that neither he nor the bulk of

those with him can share.

Are these Jews the same as the Christians spoken of in the

preceding number? It does not look like it. Anyway, it seems

quite certain that there were, in the second century and until

the end of the fourth, when St. Jerome knew them, ortho-

dox Judaeo-Christians whose whole error consisted in their

obstinacy in practising the Mosaic Law. Them we call

Nazarenes.

Side by side with them we must place the Ebionites.3 The

origin of the name is rather uncertain, and ancient authors

differ a great deal among themselves as to the way of ex-

plaining that name. The best and most natural explanation is

that which derives it from the actual poverty (ebion in Hebrew

1 Adv. kaeres., I, 26, 2.

2 Instead of JHuwfyov, as we find in the editions of Maran and Otto, weshould read ^er^pov (cf. HARNACK, History of Dogma, vol. I, p. 297, note 3).

3 Sources: HEGESIPPUS in EUSEBIUS, Hist. Eccles., IV, 22, 4-7; ST. IREK&US,Adv. haeres., I, 26, 2, III, 21, 2, ^, i, 3; ORIGEN, Contra Cdsum, II, i, V, 61;In Genes., m, 5; In Matt., XVI, 12; PSETJDO-TERXULL., n; PHILASTRIUS,37; TERT-OLL., De PraescrijL, 33; PhUosophoumena, VII, 34; EUSEB., Hist.

s., m, 27, VI, 17.

means poor) of the Christian community that had migrated and

settled beyond the Jordan.As we can gather it from our sources taken all together, their

doctrine was as follows: There is only one God, creator andlord of the world. Jesus Christ is but a man (tyt\b<? av6pa)'7ro<i),

born of the intercourse of Joseph and Mary. However, Euse-

bius testifies that some of them admitted His virginal birth.1

Because of His fidelity to observe the Law, Jesus was justified

and became the Christ: though any man may become such,

by following the same method. This is why the Ebionites

faithfully comply with all the prescriptions of this Law, espe-

cially as regards the sabbath and circumcision, and they pro-claim that such fidelity is necessary for salvation. On the

other hand, they use only the Gospel of St. Matthew, the Gos-

pel of the Hebrews, and spurn St. Paul as an apostate, the

Apostle himself and his Epistles. But, just like the, Christians,

they celebrate the Sunday with solemnity in memory of the

resurrection of Jesus Christ. St. Irenaeus adds (I, 26, 2) that

they explained the prophecies curiosius, viz., probably bymixing with those prophecies rabbinical subtleties or secret

traditions.

It was about the year 100 or even somewhat earlier, that the

Ebionites came in contact with the Essenes.2 The latter are

known to us through Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder.3

They can be represented in general as Jews to whom ritual and

legal cleanliness did not suffice, and who, perhaps disgusted

with the disorders they had seen prevalent in the higher

clergy of Jerusalem, had gradually seceded from the Temple

1 Hist. Eccles., HI, 27, 2; cf. VI, 17.2 Cf. SCHUEER, History of the Jewish People, 2nd div., vol. n, pp. 188, foil.

8PHILO, Quod omnis probits sit liber, 12, 13; and a fragment preserved by

EUSEBIUS, Praepar. Evangel., VIII, n; JOSEPHUS, De lello iud., II, 8, 2-13;

Antiquit., XIII, 5, 9, XV, 10, 4, 5, XVIII, i, 5; PLINY THE ELDER, Hist, natur.,

V, 17. The other sources; the Phflosophoumena, Eusebius, St, Epiphanius,

depend on these or are of little account.


and its sacrifices, in order to lead apart a more perfect life.

From their relations with the Ebionites arose the special typeof Ebionitism that has been called Essenian Ebionitism.

The sources of our information concerning the latter are not

of the very best,1 and we should not forget this, when we read

the following exposition, derived chiefly from the Clementine

Homilies. God is one (II, 15) ;He has a shape, a configuration

y Kal cr^jita), and limbs, though not for use (ov Sect,

z/, XVII, 7-9) . He it is who has made all things (II, 15)2

according to a law that sets all beings, two by two, one against

the other (St%5? teal evavTi&s, II, 15, 33), and in such a

way that, though the good elements and beings were created

first, and the bad ones after, still we know and experience the

latter first, and after them the former (II, 16). Thus, as to

men, Cain appeared before Abel, Ismael before Isaac, Esau

before Jacob, Aaron (wicked, because he offered sacrifices)

before Moses, John the Baptist, the son of a woman (inter

natos mulierum), before Jesus Christ, the Son of man, Simon

the Magician before St. Peter, and, at the end, Antichrist shall

appear before Christ (II, 16, ly).3

1 They are chiefly two: A. The group of the Pseiido-Clementine Writings,which originated within the sect, but were touched up afterwards and which,on the whole, do not go back farther than the 3rd century. They include (i)

The Homilies, twenty in number, preceded by an Epistle of Peter to James,the Contestatio (dutnaprvpta) of James, and a letter of Clement to the same;(2) The Recognitions, in ten books; (3) Two Greek Epitomes of the Homiliesin two different redactions; (4) Two Arabic Epitomes of the Homilies and the

Recognitions; (5) A Syriac compilation of the Homilies and the Recognitions.Cf. BAEDENHEWER, Gesch. der altkirchl. Litter.

, I, pp. 351, ff. Of these works,the Homilies is the one that exhibits the earliest state of the doctrine. B. ST.

EprpHANitJS, Haeres. XXX. He calls these heretics Ebionites and mixeswith his exposition what refers to Elkesai, though he actually aims at describingthe Essenian Ebionites. The edition quoted for the Homilies and the Recog-nitions is that of Migne's Greek Patrology, I, H.

2However, elsewhere (XVII, 9) the Homilies offers us about God.and the

world a pantheistic conception.a Cf. Recognitions, VIII, 61 : Aaron has been replaced by the magicians of

Egypt, John the Baptist by the Tempter, and perhaps St. Paul too by the


In keeping with that law;there have been, since the begin-

ning of the world 7two parallel series of prophets, some truth-

ful, others deceitful; some that have come from Adam, the

first prophet whose fall is denied (HI, 21), others, that

descend from Eve, inferior to Adam and created after Mm(HI, 22). These, however, are the first to appear, and claim

belief in their words (III, 23) ;but they cannot be but deceivers,

since they represent the feminine element (III, 27). It is theywho have introduced bloody sacrifices and wars (of which

menstruation is an image), polytheism and error (III, 24). Onthe contrary, those prophets who depend on Adam came after;

they are trustworthy; to speak more correctly, there has been,in reality, ever since the beginning of the world, only one

prophet, who appeared first in Adam, and then "changing his

name and his form, appears again and again in the world,

until, his time having come, being anointed by the mercy of

God, because of his labors, he shall enjoy rest for ever" (III,

20; cf. Recognitions, II, 22).

That prophet has manifested himself in Jesus Christ. Thus,the latter does but continue the work of Adam and Moses:

his only function is to teach. On the subject of the relations

between wisdom and God, the Homilies offers a system of

extension and contraction (e/crao-t?, o-ucrroX??), which recalls

that of Sabellius, as it was described in the fourth century.At any rate, though He is Son of God, Jesus is not God (XVI,

15). First of all, He never claimed such a title for Himself;

and then, the characteristic of the Father is to be unbegotten,that of the Son, to be begotten; now, the begotten and the

unbegotten cannot be placed on the same level: the latter is

necessarily unique (XVI, 16, 17). Such a doctrine is nothing

but pure Arianism.1

nation of the Gentiles in general. For it is certain that St. Paul is attacked in

the Homilies under the mask of Simon the Magician (XVTI, 13-19). The

igth chapter is quite direct.

1Passages such as these are evidently due to later interpolations.


To these dogmatic data we must add the affirmation of

man's freedom (X, 4; XI, 8; Recogn., Ill, 22), of the immor-

tality of the soul (XI, ii; XVI, 16), of a divine retribution

that will treat everybody according to his works (II, 36),

and particularly, will inflict on the souls of the wicked the

everlasting punishment of fire (XI, u).The ritual and moral part is a mixture of Essenism and

Judaism. The Contestatio of James admits baptism and cir-

cumcision (i) : the Homilies prescribes bathing at least once a

day (Horn., IX, 23; X, 26; XIV, i; Recogn., IV, 3; V, 36),

and advises vegetarianism (Horn., VIII, 15; XII, 6; XV, 7).

Early marriage is obligatory, that adultery and fornication

may be avoided (Horn., Ill, 68; Epist. Clem, ad Jacob., 7).

On the contrary, bloody sacrifices are disapproved of (Horn.,

111,24,26).The doctrinal exposition of the Pseudo-Clementine writings

is met with again in part, in St. Epiphanius (Haeres. XXX),whose account supplies us with a few other interesting data.

According to the Ebionites, he says, Christ and the devil have

been both established by God: to the devil belongs the rule of

the present, to Christ, that of the future world (16). Jesus is

but a man born in the ordinary way (2, 14, 16, 17, 34), though

upon him Christ descended (14) . Christ is either a created spirit

of the superior order, or the Holy Ghost Himself (3, 13, 16),

and it is He who coming upon Jesus at the latter's baptism,uttered the words :

"Thou art my beloved Son "(13, 16) . Jesus

Christ is a prophet of truth: on the contrary, all the prophetsbetween Moses and Him, such as David, Isaias, etc., are mere

impostors (18). As regards the Sacred Books, those heretics

reject a part of the Pentateuch, particularly what concerns

sacrifices and the use of meats (18), receive, among the Gos-

pels, only that of St. Matthew, which they call /caretc

E/3/oatWand the text of which they have altered (3, 13, 14, 18, 22) ; theylook on St. Paul as a liar and a cheat (16) , On the other hand,

they peruse certain HepidSpoi TLe'rpov a work ascribed to

Clement, and some (apocryphal) Acts of the Apostles

(iS, 16).

The description of their religious practices, given by St.

Epiphanius, is much the same as that found in the Clemen-tine writings. Initiated through Baptism, they celebrate everyyear the Holy Mysteries with unleavened bread and water

(16). They have preserved the Jewish observances, like the

Sabbath and circumcision, etc. (2), and, though they rejectsacrifices (16), have even priests and rulers of the synagogue(18). They bathe often and at least once a day (2, 15, 17),abstain from the meat of animals (15); but they condemncontinence and virginity (2) : among them, marriage is earlier

than it should be, and divorce is allowed (18).

These data leave no doubt as to the mixed character of the

doctrine we are now considering. The frequent ablutions, the

putting away of sacrifices are Essenian features. On the other

hand, our three sources, viz., Philo, Josephus and Pliny, agreein saying that the Essenes did not marry, and that the sect

recruited itself exclusively by the adoption or by the initia-

tion of adult persons.1 Hence it seems quite reasonable to

admit that we find here a combination of Essenian, Jewish andChristian elements: this is Essenian Ebionitism.

From this common ground of Essenian Ebionitism arose the

Elkesaite doctrine: though it is difficult to determine in a pre-

cise manner what elements the latter added to the former, and

whether its supporters formed a distinct sect or were merely a

group of Essenian Ebionites particularly attached to ElkesaL

Moreover, this last name itself has been the subject of manyconjectures.

2 Of these the most probable is that the word is a

1 However, Josephus states that in the East there was a branch of the sect,

in which marriage was practised, and even wives taken on trial for three years.

(De bello iudaico, II, 8, 13).2 It has been written in different ways: 'H\xa<ra (Pkflosophoumena),'HXa:

(St. Epiphanius) . Origen says 'EX/ceo-cura*.

12

i.68 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

mere transcription of the Hebrew words Heil-Kesai "hidden

force." That the personage to whom it is applied ever ex-

isted, some have doubted; however, their reasons do not seemto be conclusive.

The sect is made known to us by Origen (EusEBius, E..,

VI, 38) and St. Epiphanius (Haeres. XXIX, XXX, LIII),who speak for the East, and by the author of the Philosophou-mena (IX, 13-17), for the West. The latter tells us that,

under Callistus, a certain Alcibiades endeavored to introduce

the Elkesaite doctrine at Rome. This doctrine, which wascontained in the book of Elkesai, had been revealed by a

gigantic angel whowas called the Son of God, and was attended

by a female angel, the Holy Spirit, whose dimensions weresimilar.

1It was promulgated by Elkesai in the third year of

Trajan (in the year 100). It consisted essentially in the

preaching of a baptism which was distinct from that of Jesus,and remitted all sins, even the most grievous, as soon as it wasreceived with faith in the new revelation. The candidate for

baptism was plunged fully clad into the water and, while the

ceremony was going on, invoked the seven witnesses, viz.,

heaven, water, the holy spirits, the spirits of prayer, oil, salt

and bread. To this were added magical formulae, strangeincantations, predictions of the future, the divisions of daysinto days of good and evil omen, combinations of numbers,

the whole paraphernalia of astrology. Besides, the observ-

ances prescribed by the Jewish Law were still retained; amongthem circumcision. As to Jesus, He was thought to havebeen born like ordinary men, from carnal intercourse; though,according to the doctrine of metempsychosis, His birth from

Mary was a second birth; for He had already and successively

1 The fact that the Hebrew word rouak, "spirit," is of the feminine gender,has led a certain number of sects to regard the Holy Spirit as a female being!Cf. the fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews, quoted by Origen. In leremiam,horn. XV, 4; Lomm., XV, 284.


passed into several bodies and lived in this world under other

names. The Philosophoumena, draws attention to the fact that

the Elkesaites kept their tenets secret.

These data, the earliest that we possess on this sect, are

confirmed by Origen and St. Epiphanius. The former adds that

the heretics rejected a part of Scripture, as well as the author-

ity of the Apostles, and declared it lawful, in case of necessity,

to deny Christ with the lips, provided such a denial did not

come from the heart. The special details supplied by St,

Epiphanius represent the sect as a mere variety of Essenian

Ebionitism. The disciples of Elkesai, he continues, are truly

the Sampseans (Sa^afo/, sunny},1 who are really neither

Jews, nor Gentiles, nor Christians.

From this exposition we may infer that some pythagoreandoctrines had crept into Essenian Ebionitism, and by meansof Elkesaitism had affected its tenets: this is explicitly re-

marked by the PhilosopJioumena. So, while Pythagorismdid not influence the first stages of Essenism, it did influence

the last stages of this religious system, which was not benefited

therefrom, nor from contact with other doctrines that grad-

ually united with it.

On the other hand, this study shows the rather insignificant

place held by Jewish Christianity in the history of early Chris-

tianity, and the small influence it exercised on the develop-

ment of her dogma. Its pretensions were soon annihilated

both by the straight and direct blows it had received at St.

Paul's hands, and by the numerical superiority soon acquired

by Gentile Christians. True, it could and did disturb the

Church for a while, and made it necessary for Ignatius and

Pseudo-Barnabas among others to raise protestations;

but it could not seriously alarm her nor impede her steps.

1Probably so called because the Essenes with whom they were connected

invoked or seemed to invoke the sun at its rising (JOSEPH., De bdk iud., II,

vm, S).


In its struggle against the expansive Christian Idea, sustained

by the resources of Greek philosophy which the Apologists

were soon to place at her disposal, Judaism, whose metaphysi-cal powers were quite limited, could not win the day. Hence

we see the transjordanic colonies of the Church of Jerusalemsink rapidly into the condition of obscure sects, and that

Jewish Christian element which remains faithful to the es-

sential points of Christianity, become in the fourth century,

for St. Jerome and St. Epiphanius, an object rather of curi-

osity than of serious study. The traditional standing of the

Nazarenes would seem to have called for better treatment: for,

after all, the Nazarenes originated from the primitive nucleus

of nascent Christianity. But on account of their small number

they were overlooked: in the midst of the universal Church,

they were like a solitary islet, a group scarcely visible, which

attracted attention only by its peculiarities.

4. Gnosticism.1

The name of Gnosticism is given to a whole collection of

systems which arose in the early years of the second century

1 Sources: (i) Gnostic writings and fragments of Gnostic writings: the

Epistles of Ptolemy to Flora (ST. EPIPHANIUS, Haer. XXXIII, 3, ff., cf. P. G.,

VII, 1281, ff.); tie Pistis sophia (edit. PETERMANN-SCHWARTZE, Berlin, 1851,

1853); the Book of the great Logos or Book of Jeu, and another work, without

any title in the papyri of Bruce (edit. C. SCHMIDT, Gnostische Schriften in

koptischen Sprachen aus dem Codex Brucianiis herausgegeben, etc., Texte und

Untersuch.j VIII, Leipsic, 1892). The collection of the fragments is found in

GRABE, Spicilegium, II; MASSUET, P. G., VII, 1263, ff.; HILGENFELD, Die

Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums, Leipsic, 1884. Cf. also CLEMENT OF ALEX-

ANDRIA, Excerpta Theodoti. (2) The catalogues and refutations of heresies:

ST. IREN^EUS, Adversus haereses libri V] ST. HTPPOLVTUS, Syntagma contra

omnes haereses, a work which is not extant, but is well represented by PSEUDOTERTUIXIAN, Liber adversus omnes haereses; PmiASTRnrs, De haeresibus liber,

and ST. EPIPEANIUS, Panaria; PhUosophoumena, sive Haeresium omnium con-

ftttatio (edit. Cruice); ADAMANTIUS, De recta in Deumfide. To these we mustadd the special treatises and instructions left by Clement of Alexandria, Origen,


and some of which survived even till the fifth century and

later; and which, on the whole, represent either an effort of

philosophic thought to absorb Christianity and transform it

into a mere religious philosophy or an effort of religious thoughtto find in the same Christianity a deeper meaning than the

simplicity of the Gospel allowed, and to transform it into a

mystagogy of initiations and dreams. In either case, it was a

science of a higher order (/yz/ficw), which pretended to take the

place of common and ordinary faith (TT&W). The gnostic

was thought to understand his belief and to have penetratedits mystery.

For, though Christianity furnished an authoritative solution

of the great problems studied by the human mind, still it did

not pretend to give a strictly so called explanation of those

problems. Hence, even after one had accepted the Christian

belief, there was room for further researches of which this

Christian belief might be the starting-point, and a clear and

well-balanced philosophy, the instrument. This was the

Christian Gnosis, as understood by Clement of Alexandria

and Origen. Unfortunately, instead of this cautious philosophy,which is nothing but the best exercise of reason, Gnostics, in

order to clear up their faith, made use of both a degeneratePlatonism that tended toward Pantheism and a superstitious

Neo-Pythagorism that tended towards magic. Moreover, in

order to avail themselves, for the same purpose, of the ele-

ments of truth which they thought were contained in the

TertulJian, Eusebius and other ecclesiastical historians, and moreover PLOTOTOS,Upbs rots jvwTLKofc, in the Ettneades. Works: DUCHESNE, Origines ChrB-

tiennes, chap, XI; Hist. anc. de PEglise, vol. I, chap, xi; LZPSTUS, Der Gnosticis-

mus, sein Wesen, Ursprungund EntwicMungsgang, Leipsic, 1860; MANSEL, The

Gnostic Heresies, London, 1875; KOFFMAKE, Die Gnosis nach Tendenz und Or-

ganisation, Breslau, 1881; HILGENFELD, Die Ketzergeschichte de$ Urchristentums,

Leipsic, 1884; E. DE FAYE, Introduction d VMstoire du gnosticisme, Paris, 1903,As to the literature referring to each particular sect, cf. BARDENHEWER,

Geschichte der aMkirchlichen Litter., I, pp. 318, fL [Duchesne's Histoire has been

translated into English.]


religions of old, they borrowed the secret rites and initia-

tions of pagan mysteries, which, as is well known, were muchin vogue during the second century, or they transported into the

teachings of the Church the theogonic and cosmogonic doc-

trines of Egypt, Chaldea, Persia, and perhaps even those of

India known at Alexandria and in Syria, To these elements of

inferior quality was added an exegesis altogether too allego-

rizing, and consequently a method which could but lead to in-

terpretations at the same time erroneous and fantastic. So,

imagination was let loose, as it were, and the Christian world

of that time saw strange, complex and shocking systems rise

from these injudicious combinations into which the Gospelwas made to enter: systems about which we may ask our-

selves how they could ever have been upheld by reasonable

beings or seriously proposed, maintained and defended.

Nevertheless, these oddities should not make us lose sight

of the importance of the problems taken up by Gnosis, nor of

the earnestness which some of its teachers brought to their

study. "Eadem materia apud haereticos et philosophos volutatur:

iidem retractatus impUcantur: Unde malum et qua in re? Undehomo et guomodo, et quod maxime Valentinus proposuit: unde

Deus?" Thus does Tertullian 1 sum up the questions which the

heretics aimed at solving, and which were of so great an im-

portance: the nature of God, the nature of man and his origin,

the reason for the existence of evil. Then, in the Gnostic

systems themselves, we must carefully distinguish the stapleof their teaching from the images by means of which that

teaching was set forth, and from the more or less symbolicalnarratives in which it was embodied. Those images and nar-

ratives, which were used chiefly in the liturgical service, did

not belong to the essence of the doctrine: they were moreundetermined and treated with a certain amount of freedom.

1 De Praescript,, 7; cf. CLEMENT or ALEXANDBIA, Excerfta ex Theodoto, 78.


Such, then, was the end Gnosticism had in view, such, too,

the means it used to reach that end. Now, as regards the

sources of our knowledge of the system itself, all are not of

equal value. The Gnostic writings, the first authoritative

source that should be consulted, have almost entirely dis-

appeared: scarcely four or five entire pieces have been pre-

served, besides the quotations and fragments, sometimes

lengthy, inserted by heresiographers in their works.1St.

Justin's catalogue of heresies has been lost, and to recon-

struct it seems to be impossible. At the time of St. Irenaeus,

the earliest author whose writings against Gnosticism have

come down to us, the latter had already evolved, and it is prob-able that, in spite of his having used ancient documents (cf.

chiefly Adv. haeres., I, 22-27) the Bishop of Lyons in describing

the heresy at its birth, gave to it many features that appeared

only later on. True, the Syntagma of St. Hippolytus is met with

in the three authors the Pseudo-Tertullian, Philastrius and

St. Epiphanius who borrowed from it; still we have not

the text itself; and as to the documents analyzed by the

Philosophoumena, probably, granting their authenticity,

they do not go back farther than the beginning of the third, or

the end of the second century. We pass by the data supplied

by Origen and Tertullian: those given by Clement of Alexandria

are nearer to the sources and therefore more valuable.

From this exposition it follows that we know but imper-

fectly the true nature of the Gnostic systems during their first

fifty years from 120 to about 170 as well as the precise

doctrine of those who propounded them. The only result wecan get from the study of our sources seems to be this: we must

distinguish two periods in the history of Gnosticism. The first

includes the second century. Gnosticism, whose symptoms, as

we have seen, can be found among the errors referred to in

1 HARNACE, GeschicUe der dfchristlichen IM&f., Die Ueberliefer, pages 152,

fi., 918; BAJLDENHEWER, Gesck. der attkirchticke* Litter., I, pages" 1318, foU,


St. Paul's Episttes, appears then, at the epoch of Hadrian and

Antoninus (117-161)5 with Menander, Saturninus, Basilides,

Valentinus and Carpocrates as its advocates, and develops in a

normal way until the end of the century. This first phase is

characterized, at least in the beginning, by the intellectual and

often moral excellence of the founders of the sects, by the

philosophical tendency of the systems, and by the well de-

fined distinctions of the various schools. Then, at the begin-

ning of the third century, a second period opens. New sects

appear and multiply most abundantly, bearing strange names

and started by men unknown or of inferior ability. Their

systems absorb gradually the great theories of the previous

age, and at the same time tend to unite together, so as to

become nothing but varieties on a common doctrinal ground.

Moreover, the philosophical element gives place to the purely

religious or even magical element. Instead of reason, revela-

tions recorded in apocryphal books that are quite numerous,are resorted to; instead of instructions, rites and mysteriousceremonies are multiplied: far from gaining, the standard of

morality loses by such a change, and some sects reach the very-

lowest stage of degradation: this is why they conceal their

teaching, nay their very existence, and it is often only by a

lucky chance that we have come to know them. A classification

of the various Gnostic systems is not easy; they form a grouptoo complex and too imperfectly known, to be arranged in a

satisfactory way; at all events, scholars have not been success-

ful in this task, and the classifications that have been proposedare greatly subjective and necessarily differ according to the

standpoint from which they have been made. The one most

generally accepted starts from the geographical point of viewand divides the systems into two great categories. The first

comprises those which come from Syria and have borrowedfrom the Syrian, Chaldean, and Persian religions, constitutingthe Syrian Gnosis the chief representatives of which are Simon

the Magician, Menander, Saturninus, the Ophites mentioned

by St. Irenseus, the Cainites and Justin. The second includes

the systems that arose in Egypt and have borrowed from its

religion of old; this is called the Alexandrian Gnosis, with

which we must connect Basilides, Valentinus and his disciples

(Ptolemy and Heracleon, for the Italian school; Theodotus,

Marcus, Secundus and Axionicus, for the Oriental school),

Carpocrates and Epiphanes, the Docetse, and the Alexandrian

Ophites (Naassenes, Peratae, Sethites, etc.). Marcionitism,which is often presented as a branch of Gnosis, offers special

features and therefore must be studied by itself.

The reader should not expect from us a detailed account

of all these systems: this would be a task both irksome

and little necessary, and incapable of being carried out

within the limits of this book. We have thought it better

to point out the chief characteristic doctrines of those

systems, while noting down, at the proper place, their

most important differences.

The supreme God is generally represented as unique. Amongthe divine beings that surround Him, whether they emanate

from Him or not, He appears as the only one of His kind.1

In some systems, v. g. that of the Ophites, known to

us through St. Irenseus, evident traces of the Christian

Trinity may be found; according to them, the first principle

comprises the Father (the first man), the Son (Ennoia, the

second man), and the Holy Ghost, who is spoken of as a female

being.2

This first principle, supreme God and Father of all things, is

unknown to the lower world, nay often to the beings that are

nearest to Him. The tendency is to make of Him an abstrac-

tion (/3v0o$, 6 ov/c <$v #05) : a tendency which is nothing but

a refinement of Platonism or a derivation from those cos-

1 Ptolemad ad Floram Epistula, P. G., VII, 1289.2 Adv. haeres., 1, 30, i.

176 - THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

mogonies of old which looked upon chaos and the abyss, viz.,

the utmost lack of light and order, as the source of cosmos.

Between the supreme God and the inferior world, there is a

suprasensible world, which has emanated so most say

from the first principle, and is to fill up the space between the

infinite and the finite, the absolute and the relative, and to

explain creation: it is called the pleroma, the"ogdoad." It is

made up, sometimes of beings that seem to be quite real and

concrete, as in the Syrian Gnosis generally, sometimes, as in

the systems of Simon and Valentinus, of abstractions and

passions personified and presented two by two, as the male

and the female element, forming syzygies, as it were: z/ofc

and eVxWa, (f)G>vrj and oVo/wr, or again Spirit and Truth, Wordand Life, etc. Among these eons, we must remark es-

pecially the eon Christ or Jesus, who afterwards came down

upon the Redeemer.1

Creation originates from one or several of these eons infe-

rior to the Father of all things.2 For matter and spirit are not

looked upon as two different forms of being, unequal in per-

fection, but rather as two contradictory forms of being, ex-

cluding each other, so to speak. Spirit is good; matter, evil:

the latter is the "^ ov" and therefore cannot be the workof God who is preeminently a spirit. So, the demiurge is ne-

cessarily distinct from God: man and the world have beencreated by a subordinate being. From this view it was easyto pass to another, viz., to consider the demiurge as an evil

being; and this many Gnostics actually did.

Now, as the Bible tells us, this demiurge is the God of the

Jews, the author of the Mosaic Law. Therefore, this God is amischievous genius, and should be resisted; His law is like

Him and should he despised. This conclusion, which is

drawn more or less explicitly by several sects, rests moreover on1 ST. IREJLEUS, Adv. haeres., I, 2, 6.* Ptokm. ad Flor. Epist., P. (?., VH, 1289.

the confused ideas of the Gnosis in regard to the exclu-

sive and narrow character of Judaism, and the opposition be-

tween Hellenism, Philosophy and the Old Testament. Thelatter represents only a particular and relative religion; Gnos-

ticism dreams of a definitive and absolute religion. Such a con-

clusion does away with the unity of history; if creation and the

Law are evil, Redemption does not come to perfect the first,

but to destroy it, nor does Christianity continue the second,but stands directly against it. That there is an oppositionbetween the Old and the New Testament is an affirmation

of Marcionitism, but which is found elsewhere too.

Still, not everything in creation is evil. Without the demi-

urge's knowledge, the supreme Father or some superior

spirit has let drop thereinto a spark, a ray, a perfume of the

suprasensible world, of the First Being's realm. This divine

element has more or less penetrated all creatures. In them it

suffers from its contact with matterând from its imprisonmentin the gross elements with which it is mixed, the more so that

the demiurge persecutes it as foreign to his own work, and seeks

to do away with it.

From the presence or absence of this spark of life in individ-

uals results the division of mankind into categories quite dis-

tinct one from another, in which salvation is less a matter of free

and personal initiative than the mere effect of an original state

that cannot be got rid of. There are three classes of men: the

spiritual or pneumatic, the psychic and the hylic or mate-

rial: irvevpcm/cot, îî/eoi, v\uco[ or <ra>/uiTUcot.1 In the

first, the divine element is predominant: they cannot do evil:

their salvation is assured. In the second class there is an

equilibrium between the good and the evil elements: they can

choose between doing what is right and what is wrong, saving

and losing themselves. In the last class, matter and therefore

1 ST. iRENuEUS, Adv. haeres., I, 7, 5; TERTULLIAN, Adv. Vdentinianos, 29.

Some sects, v. g., that of Saturninus, admitted only two classes.


vice is preponderant: they are irreparably condemned. The

members of the first class are the Gnostics; of the second, the

ordinary Christians; while in the third category are included

the Jews and the Heathen.

It is easy to see in what the original fall consists, namely in

the imprisonment within matter, of the spark of light and life.

Hence the chief purpose of Redemption is to free this divine

element and bring it back to the source from which it came;and to accomplish this, the Saviour has been sent.

As regards the person of Jesus Christ, the Gnostic systemsset forth three different conceptions, two of which, however,do not exclude each other, nay are sometimes met with in the

same authors.

Carpocrates and Justin the Gnostic regard the Saviour as a

mere man, superior to others only in justice and sanctity.

Their view, however, is an exception, for dualism is generallyfound in Gnostic Christology, and is even its characteristic.1

The Saviour is made up of two beings, one earthly and human,the other heavenly and divine, that is accidentally united to

the first, in order to do the work of Redemption with it and,as it were, under its cover. This is the teaching of the Valen-

tinian school in general.

To this dualism Docetism was often added. Of the two ele-

ments that constitute Jesus Christ, the human element is only

apparent. This view is but a consequence of the oppositionbetween spirit and matter, and of the essentially evil character

of the latter. Since matter is evil in itself and incapable of

being saved, it cannot become an integral part of the Saviour's

being, nor cooperate with His work. The heavenly Christ as-

sumed only the appearance of matter, and even this He sur-

1 HAENACK (Le/trb. der D G., I, p. 247, note i; Hist, of Dogma, I, p. 258,note i) aptly remarks that the distinctive feature of Gnostic Christology is notDocetism, as is commonly believed, but dualism, that is, the well-marked dis-

tinction between two natures, or rather between two persons in Jesus Christ.


rendered, when He ascended to the place whence He had come.

Often this Docetism is absolute as in Simon, Saturninus and the

Basilidians referred to by St. Irenaeus; at other times, it is but

partial and denies only the earthly origin of the body of Jesus,

which, accordingly, was not taken from common matter, but

came down from heaven and merely passed through Mary, Sia

Mapta9. This is the system of Marinus and Apelles.

As understood by the Gnostics, the Saviour had the less

need of a real body, in as much as, according to them, Re-

demption is wrought not through His sufferings and death,but through science, through gnosis. To know the Father,till that time unknown, to penetrate into the mysteries of the

sect, to believe in its secret traditions, to interpret as it does the

Gospel nauatives and the phenomena of nature, to partake of

its rites: such is the salvation brought to us by Jesus.1 The

Gnostics are intellectualists in the bad sense of the term:

science, or at least that which they dignify with this name,is for them the equivalent of virtue, nay excels it: the king-

dom of heaven is reached through knowledge, not through the

effort of the will.

Grounded on the speculative views we have just summed up,the Ethics of Gnosticism set forth two tendencies quite differ-

ent. As early as the second century, Clement of Alexandria

had divided the Gnostic sects into ascetical and licentious,2 both

starting from the intrinsically evil character, as they consid-

ered it, of matter: for, from this principle the former concluded

that matter should be ill-treated; the latter, that it should be

defiled, and that, as it was incapable of any good, its actions

were indifferent. The irresistible determinism openly pro-

fessed by some doctors could not but favor this last error:

hence several schools, whose early teachers had led an austere

1 ST. IREN^US, Adv. haeres., 1, 15, 2; Ph&osophoumena, V, 10; Pistis sopMa,

pp. i, ff., 182, 232; Book ofJeu, p. 142.2Strom,, HI, 5, P. G., Vm, 1144.

iSo THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

or at least a decent life, gradually fell into revolting immo-

rality. True, the historians of heresies may have sometimes

blamed them unduly, and what they say is not always con-

firmed by the Gnostic fragments that have come down to us.

However, these fragments are sometimes blameworthy in this

regard, and then it should be borne in mind that scandalous

excesses of that nature are not apt to be freely displayed in

books or revealed to the public in writing.

As regards eschatology, it is one of the points on which

Gnosis departed most widely from orthodox Christianity. Theresurrection of the body, of course, was out of the question.

1

The judgment had been already passed for many men and

was being carried out day by day. On the other hand, Christ

had definitively and forever ascended to the supreme Father;hence no parousia was to be expected. There would be no

final crisis; rather, it would seem, the world was to cometo an end through exhaustion the Demiurge being unable

to feed its life and through the gradual withdrawal of

the particles of superior light diffused throughout creation.

According to Valentinus, a universal fire was to come at the

appointed time and consume the material universe togetherwith the vkiicoi or grossly materialistic who are incapable of

salvation.

A few words remain to be said about the Gnostic worship.Since Gnosis had issued, partly at least, from the religions of

the East, and was not far removed in its esoteric teaching from

the mysteries of Paganism, its worship could but be stampedwith the traces of that twofold relationship. As a matter of

fact, we find in it a whole system of initiations, sacraments,

purifications, magical formulas, combinations of numbers, as-

trological divinations, amulets and charms, which sometimesindeed recall what is most holy in Christianity, but most often

* Cf. the rule of faith of Apelles in ST. EPIPHANITTS, Haeres. XLIV, 2.


originate from the grossest superstition, or even embody the

most revolting brutality.

With, several of these rites and practices we are acquainted.St. Irenaeus tells us of the spiritual marriage, of baptisms ac-

companied with Hebrew formulas, of the anointing of the

dying with balm mingled with oil and water, of the mark

imprinted with red-hot iron behind the right ear, of propheciesand of fictitious miracles tending to make sensible the change

wrought in the Holy Mysteries.1 Elsewhere we meet with

mystical songs and hymns,2 with the threefold baptism by

fire, water and the Spirit; with a revolting eucharist,3strange

invocations, and the use of peculiar images, symbolical draw-

ings, medals, and stones stamped with fantastic figures. AHthese means and adjuncts which were often the imaginationof second-rate doctors, awed the common people and madethem feel the presence of the divine. Unable to understand

the complex theories of Ptolemy and Basilides, they clung the

more firmly to these practices, in which they believed theyfound the salvation and the forgiveness of sins, which these

high doctrines were thought to impart.Thus understood, Gnosis became for the Church the source

of a serious danger. As we have said, several of its leaders

were gifted with an uncommon penetration of mind, capable of

broad views and generalizations, and gifted with eloquence;

moreover, they set forth in their lives a correctness of morals,

nay a Christian austerity which served to increase their au-

thority. To the Church these men proffered precisely what

she was still lacking: viz., a general view of the history and

work of salvation, a philosophy of Christianity and of its re-

lations with Judaism and Paganism, a deeper understanding of

1 Adv. haeres., 1, 13, 2, 3; 21, 3, 5; 25, 6; cf. EXISEB., E. E., IV, 7, 7.2Phttosopkoumena, V, 10.

8 Pistis Sophia, pp. 375, if., 386; Book of Jell, pp. 194, i95> *9S JST. EPI-

PHANIES, Eaeres. XXVT, 4.


her faith. And yet, while pretending to illustrate this faith,

Gnosis was actually doing away with it. On almost all the

fundamental points, as the identity of God and the Demiurge,the connection of both Testaments, the universality of Re-

demption, the unity of person in Jesus Christ, and the real and

bodily character of His manifestation, the value of His sac-

rifice, the resurrection of the body, and the end of man, even

the nature of the Decalogue, on all these points, Gnosticism

was in contradiction with the Gospel; it destroyed its sim-

plicity and adulterated its teaching, by means of sophistry.

As it has been said, it was nothing else than the "acute

[refined] secularizing of Christianity,"1 a Philosophy substi-

tuted for Revelation, an attempt made by Paganism to con-

tinue its life under the cover of the Church. And yet, this

strange mixture skilfully presented to minds at the same time

inquisitive and not strongly enough established, could not

fail to have many attractions for them. That such was actually

the case, is proved by the vogue which Gnosticism obtained,

by the intellectual efforts which controversialists had to maketo bring about its defeat, and finally by the care which the

Church took to do away, as much as possible, with its mem-

ory and literature.

The struggle against Gnosis, in fact, was the chief doctrinal

task of the Church during the second century. Now it isworthyof note, rightly observes Mgr. Duchesne,

2 that to the learned

reasonings and fancies of the Gnostics, the Church did not

oppose a ready-made system, a rational synthesis of her faith, a

theology strictly so called this did not exist yet: she opposedher tradition, and not precisely and directly her doctrinal

tradition, but her hierarchical tradition. The successors of the

Apostles alone are qualified to teach us the truth: to them wego to become acquainted with it. And since the Church of

1HAENACK, Lekrb. der D ., I, p. 211; Hist, of Dogma, I, p. 222,

*Origines Chr&ierwes, pp. 168, 169.

Rome is the principal Church with which all others must agree,her tradition suffices to convict of error all those who do not

think in harmony with her and do not come from her. Suchwas the very simple argument, more practical than theoretical,

which St. Irenseus urged against Gnosis, and from his time,this argument was strong enough to win the battle. Without

any sudden and violent commotion, without councils, without

any solemn condemnation such as, in the following ages,

routed error in a single day, "the Church rid herself of Gnosis,

gradually, without any crisis, simply, by the healthy life of the

body which is sufficient in itself to destroy the genns of disease,

before the vital organs are attacked."

We may add, moreover, that if Gnosis was for the Church a

source of serious danger, nevertheless, in other ways, it was of

great profit to her. Not only did the defenders of orthodoxy,while struggling against their adversaries, learn from themmore than one truth, and widen their own views, but the con-

troversy also brought into current use a certain number of

terms, such as ov<rta, o/ioowto?, vn-rfoTCMTO, Trpo/SoX?;, etc.,

by which Theology profited and the exact meaning of which

she had to determine. In these doctrinal debates her language

began to be formed, and for the first time the need was felt

to impart to it more firmness and precision.

5. Martionitism.1

Mafciok was formerly looked upon as one of the Gnostics,

a view which is open to criticism, since he was not promptedin his researches by those speculative preoccupations which

1 Sources: ST. JUSTIN, Apology I, 26, 58; Dialog., 35; ST. IBEBLEUS, Adv.

haer., I, 27, 2-4; in, 4, 3; 11,9; 12,12; 13; 14, TERTUUJAN, Adi.McurcwnemLibri quinque; De Carne Christi; Adv. Eermog&n&n. PSEDIK>TERTUIIJAN, 17.

PmLASTRius, 45. ST. EPIPHANTUS, Haer. XLII. Pk&osophouitterta, VII, 29-31,

X,'i9. ADAMANTIUS, De recta in Deumfide, I, n. EZNIG OF GOGHP, Refutation

des Series (5th century). Works: DTJCHESNE: Qri&nes Ckr&iennes, chap. XI,13


moved the Gnostics; his system presents none of the specula-

tions and fancies to be found in their system, and if between

them there are some seeming analogies, this is probably due,

not to Marcion himself; but to the Syrian Cerdon whom he

knew at Rome and who was his teacher for a while (about 138-

139) .* Hence we speak of him separately.

Marcion was struck, chiefly with the opposition between the

two Covenants, between the Law and the Gospel.2 New wine,

he used to say, is not put into old bottles, nor a piece of raw

cloth added to an old garment.3 But then, how can we ac-

count for the fact that the Church and her writers since the

Apostles, and even the Apostles themselves, have insisted on

connecting the New Covenant with the Old, grace with the

Law, Christianity with Judaism? Marcion sees only one ex-

planation: viz., all have fallen into error, St. Paul excepted.

For St. Paul alone has pointed out in his Epistle to the Gala-

tians those Judaizdng doctors who pervert the Gospel by en-

deavoring to mix the Law with it; thus he was the man raised

by God to restate the true meaning of Christianity, that had

been falsified by the Twelve. Even in* his case, his writings

have been tampered with since his death, and must be purgedof the errors that have been introduced into them.4

For what is the ancient Law? A just law, no doubt, but

only just, and besides, severe, hard, unbending. On the con-

6; Hist. anc. de I'Eglise, vol. I, ch. XI [English translj. HJLGENFELD, Die

Keteergtschichte des Urcfaistentums, Leipsic, 1884. HAKNACK, De Apellis Gnosi

tnonarchica, Leipsic, 1874. MEYBOOM, Marcion en de Marcionieten, Leyden,1888.

1 About Cerdon, cf. ST. IRENJETIS, Adv. haer., I, 27, i; m, 4, 3; PSEHDOTERTUIJIAN, 16; PHELASTBIUS, 44; ST. EHPHANTUS, Haer. XLI: these last

three are not so reliable.

*Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principak opus est Marcionis (TER-

TUL., Adv. Marcionem, I, 19).1 ST. EPIEHAN., Haeres. XLIE, 2.

4 ST. IREN., Adv. haer., I, 27, 2; m, 2, 2; TERTUIL., Adv. Marcion., I, 20;

IV, 3-


trary, the Gospel is nothing but kindness, love, liberty. Twosuch opposite dispensations cannot have the same author, and

accordingly, with the help of Gnosis, Marcion holds there are

two principles, two gods: one, the Creator of the world andthe Law giver of the Old Covenant, not indeed evil in him-

self, but rigorous, fickle, acting only with justice and power,from whom all the sufferings of mankind originate; the other,

superior to the first, revealed by Jesus, good, merciful, full of

loving kindness.1

Though the world was no concern of His,

since He had not made it, still, in His mercy, He has vouch-

safed to come to its rescue.2

It is in and through Jesus Christ that the supreme God mani-

fests Himself. Jesus is the saving Spirit (Spiritus salutaris)?

What His precise relation to God is, Marcion does not state

with distinctness: though, ordinarily, he identifies God and

Jesus.4 In any case, Jesus does not realize at all the Mes-

sianic features described by the Old Covenant; He has nothingin common with the warrior announced beforehand, who was to

set up the kingdom of the just God.5 Moreover His bodywas only apparent: He borrowed nothing from the Demiurge'swork (in this Marcion's doctrine is strict Docetism;)

6 Heeven did not pass through Mary as' a channel; suddenly, in

the fifteenth year of Tiberius, seemingly without having been

born or passed through a period of growth, Christ appeared in

Judaea.7 At every step His preaching opposed the Law, the

Prophets, the whole economy of the Demiurge.8 Hence the

1 ST. IBEN., Adv. kaer., I, 27, 2; TEBTOLL., Adv. Marc., I, 6; n, 20-26, etc.;

ADAMANTIUS, 1, 10-20.2TERTULL., Adv. Marc., I, n.

Ibid., 1, 19.*ibid., i, n, 14; n, 27; m, 9; iv, 7.

5Ibid., HI, 12-23.

Ibid., HI, 8-n.7 ST. IEEN., Adv. haer., 1, 27, 2; TERTULL., Adv. Marc.,I, 19; IV, 6.

8 ST. IREN., Adv. kaer., I, 27, 2j TERTULL., Adv. Marc., IV, 25-27; ADA-

WANTIUS, 1, 10-20,

latter's wrath, as well as his followers', against Him. Jesus

is taken and crucified. Strangely enough, Marcion, who

taught Docetism, ascribes to the death of Jesus probably

on St. Paul's authority a special meaning and value in regard

to our Redemption. The good God purchases us from the

Demiurge.1 Then the Saviour descends to Hades, there to

preach the Gospel and announce salvation. But the just of the

Old Law, Abel, Henoch, Noe, etc., thinking He is sent by the

Demiurge who so often tempted them, do not answer His call.

The wicked alone, Cain, the Sodomites, the Egyptians listen

to His words and with Him go out from Hell.2

The preaching of Jesus Christ was to be continued uponearth by the Apostles; but, as was said, they did not understand

it; St. Paul alone was its true exponent. By assenting to it,

we are justified and made children of God;3

though besides, in

practice, a severe moral life is to be added. Marcion himself

gave the example of austerity (sanctissimus magister),4 and

imposed on his disciples a rigorous asceticism, the abstainingfrom pleasures, the mortification of the flesh, the privation of

some kinds of food, and above all continence and celibacy.

They were to live (ruvrakahrapot, /cal <TV/tya<7ov/-tez>oi, commi-

serones et coodibiles in the world and suffer martyrdom with

courage, if it was necessary.5 On this condition alone, would

they escape the Demiurge's fire which, at the end of ages,

shall consume those who are lost and these are the majorityof mankind.6 By this teaching Marcion destroyed manyfeatures of Christian eschatology: the resurrection of the

body, the parousia, the last judgment were suppressed. The

1TERTULL., Adv. Marc., V.

* ST. IREN-SUS, Adv. Jiaer., I, 27, 3,8ADAMANTIUS, n, 2, 6.

4TERTULL., De praescript., 30.

6TERTULL., Adv. Marc., 1, 14, 19, 28; IV, 9, 1 1, etc., 36; Phflosophoumena,

vn, 29.

TERXUIL., Adv. Marc,, I, 24, 28.


merciful God, strictly speaking, would not punish the wicked:

He would simply cast them aside, and by the very fact, theywould fall back again into the power of the Demiurge who wasto punish them.1

Such was Marcion's teaching. As we have seen, it was ac-

companied with a bold criticism both of primitive Christian

history, and of Apostolic writings. Marcion set aside the

allegorical method of exegesis, and likewise by this very fact,

all the Old Testament, whose economy could, in his eyes, be

justified only by this method. In the New Testament, he

kept only St. Luke's Gospel from which he excluded, how-

ever, the Saviour's genealogy and many other passages,2 and

ten Epistles of St. Paul (the Pastoral Epistles and that to the

Hebrews being left aside), in which also all that seemed to him

interpolations of a later age were suppressed. Finally, he

himself composed a work entitled Antitheses* in which he hadset off the manifold opposition between the Law and the Gos-

pel, Nature and Grace, the just God and the merciful God:

a work which, together with the Epistles of St, Paul and the

mutilated GospeL of St. Luke, made up the authoritative

books, the canon of Marcionitism,

Thus scantily equipped, this system spread rapidly andmade many recruits.4 The very severity of its ethical code led

many to embrace it, for the right measure in this line had not

yet been distinctly defined. Moreover, Marcion possessed an

organizing and practical mind: driven from the Church, he

1 ST. IREN., Adv. haer., I, 27, 3; TERTULL., Adv. Marc., I, 27; ADABIANXIUS,

DU~6\2 ST. IREN., Adv. haer., I, 27, 2; TERTULL., Adv. Marc., IV, 2, 3, 4. Mardon

called it simply etayytXtoj' icvplov it was called also tie Gospel of Mardon.The best restitution of it, as well as of his Apostolicum, is that by ZAHN, Ge-

schicbte des Neutes. Kanons, IE, 2, pp. 409-529; cf. I, 2, pp. 585-718.8 *Avri6tcrctt : TERTULL., Adv. Marc., I, 19; n, 28, 29; IV, i, 4, 6; Pkfto-

soph., VH, 30. An attempt at its restitution has been made by A. HABN,Antitheses Mardoms Gnostici, Konigsberg, 1823.

_ * ST. JUSTIN, Apokg. I, 26, 58.


himself founded openly independent churches, with a hie-

rarchy copied from that of the orthodox communities.1They

had their martyrs,2 and resisted, with an uncommon energy,

the missionary efforts of Catholics as well as the violence of

persecutors.3 Some of these churches seem to have lasted as

late as the tenth century.

Doctrinal divisions soon began to arise among Marcion's

disciples, chiefly in regard to the number of first principles,

without, however, decreasing considerably the power of action

of the heresy itself. We know some of his disciples: Potitus,

Basiliscus and Syneros, mentioned by Rhodon;4

Prepon,

who, like Syneros, admitted three principles of things, a good,a bad and a just one, holding the middle between the other

two;5

Hermogenes, who was refuted by Theophilus of An-tioch and Tertullian; Lucanus, who, according to the latter,

also taught the resurrection of a third element, which wasneither the body, nor the soul;

6 the author of the book of

Leucius Charinus, an absolute Docetist;7 others too recorded

by the Philosophoumena (X, 19), who claimed there were four

first principles, ayad6 v^ Bfaaiov, 7rovr]p6v, V\TJ. To these

were added by Theodoret, Pitho and Blastus (this last erro-

neously, it seems) ;

sby St. Epiphanius, Theodotion,

9 and bySt. Jerome, a certain Ambrose 10 who later on became the friend

of Origen. But the most illustrious of all and the one who trulysucceeded Marcion was Apelles.

1TERTULL., Adv. Marc., IV, 5; De Praescript., 41.

2ETJSEB., H. K, IV, 15, 4, 6; V, 16, 21; VH, 12; De martyr. Pokes*.,

X,2.3EUSEB., Vita Const., HE, 64; THEODORET, Epist. CXm, CXLV.

4EUSEB., H. K, V, 13, 3-4.

5Phiksophoumena, VII, 31 (ed. Cmice, p. 382),

8TERTDirL., De resurrectione camis, 2.

7PnoTras, Biblioth.. cod 114; cf. Dictionary of Christian Biography, I,

p. 870; in, p. 703.8 Haer&icarum fabularum compendium, I, 25.8 De mensuris et ponderibus, 17.

10 De viris ittustribus, 56.


His history is given by Tertullian.1 We are told that when,on his return from Alexandria, he had met at Rome a virginnamed Philomena, who pretended to be inspired, the latter

dictated to him her Revelations ($>avep&crei$) ;

2 and moreover,that he himself composed Syllogisms (av\\o^Lo-fLoi}] frag-

ments of which have been preserved to us by St. Ambrose.3

The chief change made by Apelles in his master's teachingwas to bring it from Dualism to Monism. He taught there

was only one first principle, which, however, is not the creator

of this world.4 The creator is an Angel of fire, who also orig-

inates from the supreme God: He is the God of Israel and

our own. 5 He has created the bodies only; but to these bodies

he has joined preexisting souls. Souls have a sex of their ownwhich they impart to bodies.6 The rest of the system repro-

duced substantially that of Marcion: Docetism was somewhat

mitigated;7 but the denial of the resurrection of the body and

the prohibition of marriage were maintained,8 the Law and

prophecies set aside as the work of a wicked spirit.9 More-

over, as to doctrine itself, Apelles does not seem to have been

very exacting: for him, trust in the crucified Lord and prac-

tice of virtue were, after all, the essential.10 In this oppo-

sition to Gnostic intellectualism, he remained a true disciple

of Marcion.

1 De Praescript., 30; De Carne Christi, 6.

2 TERTULL. De Praescript., 30, 6; Phftosophoumena, X, 20; RHODON, in

EUSEB., H. E., V, 13, 2.

5PSEUDO-TERTULL., 19; ST. AMBROSE, De paradiso, V, VI, VIE, etc.

* RHODON in EUSEB., H. K, V, 13, 2, 6; TERTULL., De Praescript., 34.

The Phiksophoumena (X 20) presents on this subject confusions that can be

easily accounted for by what we say in the text.

5TERTULL., De Praescript., 34; De Aniwa, 23.

6TERTULL., De resurrectione carnis, 5; De anima, 23, 36.

7TERTULL., Adv. Marc., HI, n; De came Ckristi, i, 6; Philosophy X, 20;

PSEUDO-TERTULL., 19.8TERTULL., De Praescript^ 33; PSETJDO-TERTULL., 19.

9 RPODON, in EUSEB., H. E., V, 13, 2, 9.10 RHODON, in EUSEB., H. E., V, 13, 5.

6. Tatian and the Encratites.1

In connection with Marcionitism, we must speak of Tatianand the Encratites. Though St. Irenaeus treats of Tatian in ref-

erence to the Encratites and adds that he taught a doctrine of

a special character (%Siov ^apa/crijpa SiSaer/eaXe/ov crvvea-Tq-

<raro), yet he does not state explicitly that Tatian foundedthe sect; he accuses him, only of having denied Adam's sal-

vation, condemned marriage as a fornication, and held, like

Valentinus, successions of eons. Clement of Alexandria

speaks also of his repudiation of marriage, and mentions his

work now lost TLepl rov /cara rov acorripa KarapriafAov.The historians of heresies, who came after, have substantially

reproduced the information given by St. Irenseus; and henceit is quite possible that Eusebius (H. ., IV, 28) and St.

Epiphanius (Haer . XLVI, i) have given to it more precisionthan they had a right to, when they have affirmed that Tatianwas considered or even was actually the founder of the En-cratites; the more so that St. Irenseus, in the very same

place, connects the Encratites with Saturninus and Marcion.As a matter of fact, it is more probable that the heretics

known under the name of Encratites or Continents neverformed a separate and independent sect. That name, it seems,was given to all those Christians in general whose austeritywas based, not merely on the desire of leading a more perfectlife, but also on theories as to the more or less essentially evil

character of matter, as being the work of an imperfect orwicked God. Clement of Alexandria quotes, in his Stromata(HE, 13, 14), several passages of a book of Julius Cassianus,

i Sources: ST. IREN., Adv. haer.} I, 28, i. CLEMENT OP ALEX., Stromata,

HE, 13. Phttosophoumena, VIH, 16, 20; X, 18. PSEUDO-TERTULL., 20. Pm-LASTEius,48, 72, 84. ST. EPIPHANITTS, Haer. XLVI, XLVH. EUSEBIUS, H. JS.,

IV, 28, 29.^ Works: M. LEDERMANN, Examen des hfr&ies de Tati&n, Strasburg,1845. BZLGEOTELD, Die Ktteergeschichte de$ Urcbristentums, Leipsic, 1884.


Tlepl ey/cpaTetas, $ Trepl evvov^la^ ,that forbade marriage

absolutely. St. Irenaeus, who, as we have said, points out

Saturninus and Marcion as the founders of the Encratite sect,

accuses them of teaching Adam's damnation and the abstain-

ing from marriage and from the flesh of animals. The Philo-

sophoumena (VIII, 20) adds that, as regards God and Jesus

Christ, they were in agreement with the Church: which evi-

dently shows that, for many of them, it was merely a practical

question. Philastrius (72), while he names Aerius as their

leader, characterizes their doctrine in the same manner. Asto the Abstinents of whom he speaks in the 84th chapter, theymust evidently be placed side by side with the Encratites

whose erroneous views they share. After reproducing the his-

torical notice of St. Irenaeus, Eusebius mentions a sect of

Severians, who had originated from a certain Severus: whomhe believes to have still further developed Tatian's heresy

(H. E.y IV, 29, 4, 5). Yet, to judge from the details which the

Bishop of Caesarea himself records, these heretics should be

associated rather with the Judaeo-Christians. On the other

hand, the description left by St. Epiphanius (Eaer. XLVII, i)

suggests that the Encratites, of whom he speaks, had united

with the remnant of Gnostics and Manicheans.

Thus, while some minds, attracted by the speculative ques-tions of God's nature and of the origin of the world and of evil,

plunged themselves into the dreams of Gnosis, others, setting

themselves to the problem of man's salvation, looked for its

solution exclusively in the character of the moral life: but theyalso fell into manifest exaggerations. According to them, it is

not knowledge that saves us: Marcion and the Encratites

assigned to it the second rank and Apelles did not care about

orthodoxy: salvation comes from works, and the most difficult

works are regarded as obligatory. Against this last assertion,

the Church had to determine what was legitimate austerity, and

where austerity passed into forbidden Encratism, In the letter


of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne about the Martyrs of the

year 177, we see one of the confessors of the faith, Alcibiades,

who used to take only bread and water, called to task byAttalus after a revelation, and submitting himself to the lat-

ter's warnings.1

7, Montanism.2 The Alogi.

Montanism differs from Judseo-Christianity and from

Gnosis, in as much as it was not, like them, the result of an

effort made by Philosophy and outside Religions to keep

Christianity within the framework of the Old Testament or to

transform her more or less into themselves: it was a domestic

struggle of elements that were within the Church: hence it is

1EUSEB., H. E., V, 3, 2, 3.

2 Sources; The oldest are the documents mentioned or quoted by Eusebius.

He mentions; The letters of the Martyrs of Lyons in the year 177 to the churches

of Asia and Phrygia and to Pope Eleutherus, and the letter in which the Chris-

tians of Gaul expressed their views on the Montanistic question (H. E., V,

3, 4). A work of Apollinaris of Hierapolis (E. E., V, 19, i; 16, i). A workof Miltiades Uepl rov^ dew TpoQ-fyryv & &orr&rei \d\eir (H. J5., V, 17), Hequotes the following: A letter of Serapion of Antioch (about 200) to Caricus

and Ponticus (H. E., V, 19). A work of Apollonius of Ephesus (H. E., V, 18).

An anonymous work addressed to Abercius Marcellus and composed about

211 (H. E., V, i6).~- Then, TERTULLIAN, De corona, militis\ De fuga inperse-

cutione; De exkortatione castitatis\ De mrginibus velandis', De monogamia;De ieiunio adversus psychicos; De pudicitia. His seven books De exstasi are lost

(ci St. JEROME, De viris Ulustr.^ 24, 40, 53). PSETJDO-TERTUIJIAN, 21. PHILAS-

TRIUS, 49. ST. EPIPHAOTUS, who on this topic is well informed and has drawnfrom an ancient source, apparently the work of Miltiades, Haer. XLVHI,XLDC. The Philosophoumena, VEH, 19; X, 25. ORIGEN, In Epistolam adTitum (Edit. Lommatzsch, V, 291). DEDYMUS, De Trinilate, III, 41. ST. JEROME,Epist. XLL THEODORET, Haeretic. fabul. Compendium, III, 2. ModernWorks: DUCHESNE, Origines Chretiennes, chap. XV; Hist. anc. de VEglise,vol. I, pp. 270, ff. HILGENFEUJ, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urckristmtums, Leip-sic, 1884, pp. 560-601. G. N. BONWETSCH, Die Geschichte des Montanismus,Erlangen, 1881. W. BELCE, Geschichte des Montanismus, sein Entstehungs-

ursachen,) Leipsic, 1883. V. ERMONI, La crise montaniste, in the Revw des

questions Bistorique$> vol. LXXn, 1902, pp. 61-96. [Duchesne's Histoire hasbeen translated into English.]


a heresy, properly socalled. In the Gnostic crisis, the problemwas to know which was to guide the faith and rule the conduct

of Christians, whether it would be speculation represented byGnosis and its doctors, or the traditional teaching represented

by the ecclesiastical catechesis and the bishops. In the Mon-tanistic crisis, the problem is to know first whether the econ-

omy of grace brought in by Jesus and received by the Apostlesis the ultimate and definitive economy, or whether there is not

to be another and more perfect economy, due to the special

outpouring of the Holy Ghost on new Prophets. Conse-

quently it had to be determined whether the successors of the

Apostles, the bishops, remained authoritatively charged with

the doctrinal and moral leadership of the Church, or whether,on the other hand, there were prophets alongside of them 'or

above them and directly inspired by God, to whom this leader-

ship was entrusted. In its first conflict, the doctrinal and

hierarchical authority of the Church had to defend itself against

the pretensions of speculation: now, it has to defend itself

against the claims of private inspiration.

The beginnings of Montanism are comparatively well

known, though there is still some uncertainty as to the precise

time when it originated. It was probably about the year 172,

that a recent convert, Montanus, from the borough of Arda-

bau, in Phrygian Mysia, began to experience raptures and

ecstasies, and to utter speeches which caused hrm to be con-

sidered by some as possessed by the Evil Spirit, and by others

as inspired. Two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, who becamehis followers, soon exhibited the same strange disorders. Thecommotion gradually spread through Phiygia 05 Kara 3>pvya?

aipea-t?). Crowds flock to the plain lying between Pepusa and

Tymion, where the heavenly Jerusalem is presently to descend.

There meetings are held and the Holy Mysteries celebrated in

the open air: extraordinary phenomena are witnessed. Some

go into ecstasy, others are Ufted by some strange force from the


ground. As the end of the world is near at hand, everybody

sells his property or surrenders it for the needs of the brethren.

The enthusiasm is at its highest pitch.

What, then, was the doctrine that brought about this en-

thusiasm? At bottom, and chiefly in its early days, Montan-

ism was a religious movement, a kind of spiritual revival gone

to extremes, rather than a definite system. In it a larger room

was made for ethics than for speculation. Nevertheless, the

new prophet Montanus and his followers pretended to be in

the hands of the Holy Ghost what the lyre is in those of the

musician: the human instrument was asleep, as it were, but

the Spirit was watching: God Himself spoke in His own name;the prophet simply resigned himself to be the organ of God.

This inspirationwas the outpouring of the Paraclete, announced

by the Saviour and recorded by St. John (i416

, etc.). Some,

distinguishing between the Paraclete and the Holy Ghost,

even went so far as to affirm that the latter alone had descended

on the Apostles, while the former, reserved for Montanus,

taught through him a doctrine superior to that of Jesus Christ.

However, the Christian creed was not to be corrected by the

new revelation. Tertullian, a Montanist, affirms emphatically,on the contrary, that it does but strengthen it, while, at the

same time, it puts an end to some indulgences which JesusChrist had thought it wise not to suppress.

1Thus, the Mon-

tanists forbade a second marriage, and perhaps at the begin-

ning even a first marriage: additional festival days and more

frequent fasts were introduced. Besides Lent, two periodswere observed, during which only dry food and roots wereused at meals. But the chief tenet, the one that imparted to

all the others their meaning and value, was the belief in the

1TERTUXLIAN, De monogamia, 2, 3, 14. De Virgin. veL

t i. Regnant duritiacordis usque ad Christum; regnaverit infinnitas carnis usque ad Paradetum.Nave lex abstulti repudium (kabuit quod auferret), nova prophetia secundummatrimonium, non minus repudium prioris (De monog., 14),


nearness of the parousia and of the millenniuni. Christ wassoon to come down and rule over His people; they should get

ready for this event by a universal detachment.

Imbued with this conviction and most active in their prose-

lytizing, the Montanists made rapid progress and soon spreadtheir errors in the province of Asia, in Galatia and chiefly in

Phrygia, where attempts were made to assign them to special

districts and thus to restrict their expansion. Among those

who distinguished themselves in the early stage of the sect

may be mentioned a certain Alcibiades, who seems to have

presided over it after Montanus; a so called confessor of the

faith, Themison, who composed a blasphemous epistle against

the Lord and the genuine Apostles; a thief, Alexander, whose

official record was still kept at Ephesus, and finally a certain

Theodotus, a believer, but a simple man, who met death, it is

said, in attempting the feat of rising in the air. So, the Cata-

phrygian community was made up of elements of a very mixed

character. At Rome, about 200-207, we find the Montanists

established and presided over by Proclus l and ^Eschines.

Division soon broke out among them, on occasion of the

Monarchian controversy, and then there were Montanists

kata Produm and Montanists kata Mschinem. But at this verytime (about 202), the sect made a most important conquestin the person of Tertullian.2 Under bis influence, it became

organized in Africa, and the rather strange scenes that had

occurred in Phrygia took place again in the new communities;

an interesting scene is described by Tertullian in his treatise

De Anima (9).

However, the Church did not lose courage and strove imme-

1EUSEB., H. ., II, 25, 6, 7; m, 28, 2; 31, 4; cf. VI, 20, 3. He is prob-

ably the same as the Proculus of Tertullian (Adv, Vdentinianos, 5).2 The redactor of the Passio 55. Perpetuae & FeUciiaiis was also certainly

under the influence of the new prophecies. We could not say exactly when.

From this, however, we should not infer that the Martyrs themselves were

Montanists,

diately to repel the attack and destroy the error. In the East,

holy bishops sought to bring back the wandering, and vigorous

apologists put forth refutations of the heresy. Eusebius'

knew and sometimes quotes the works of Apollinaris of Hier-

apolis, Miltiades, Serapion of Antioch, ApoUonius and finally

of an anonymous author who wrote about thirteen years after

Maximilla's death, viz., about the year 211, and some frag-

ments of whom he has preserved. At the same time several

councils of the bishops of Phrygia and the neighborhood were

convened. One was held at Iconium, in which it was decided

to renew the baptism of the Montanists who would embrace

the true faith,1 and another at Synnada,

2 both between the

years 230 and 235.

In the West, the earliest writings relating to Montanism,which we know, axe the letters sent by the Confessors of Lyonsin the year 177 to the brethren of Asia and to Pope Eleutherus,

T?j9 r&v ifc/c\i)<na>v elprfvys ivefcev, "for the peace of the

churches," says Eusebius. This expression has led somescholars among them, many Protestants 3 to believe

that the authors of these letters were in sympathy with the

Montanists. The contrary is certain: for Eusebius adds that

these documents were published by the Christians of Gaul,when the latter set forth their judgment in the matter, a judg-ment "pious and most orthodox, (eucre/??? ical opffoBo^ordr'rjv)^

Now, how could they have made public writings that wouldhave contradicted their own sentiments? The words elptfvrjs

eve/cev, then, have not the meaning and bearing ascribed to

them. As to Eleutherus, though the question was broughtbefore him, he, as well as his successor, Victor, does not seemto have solved it in a definitive manner. This was done by

1Epist. -FirmUiani ad Cyprianum (Cyfriani Epist. LXXV, 7, Edit.

Haxtel).JEUSEB., H. E. t VH, vii, 5.

8HASNACK,Lehrb.derI>G.,It p.2g2j Hist, ofDogma, vol. n, p. 97.

;


Zephyrinus who, at first unacquainted with the true state of

affairs, was duly informed by the Monarchian Praxeas, and

stopped in time the letters of communion already directed to

the Montanistic Churches.1

Although all these writings and measures did not immediatelycheck the Montanistic movement, they at least restrained its

diffusion and progress. In Africa, the sect spread little; it

had nearly disappeared in the year 370, and it died awayaltogether during the lifetime of St. Augustine.

2 In the East,

it continued to subsist for a longer time; there it had martyrswhose deeds it did not fail to record and praise.

3 The rigorousmeasures of Constantine and of Theodosius could not uproot

it, and Sozomen informs us that Montanists were still quite

numerous in his time.4 They do not seem to have outlived

the sixth century.

Moreover, it seems that, very soon after the rise of the Mon-tanistic sect, a reaction which fell into another extreme arose

against it in Asia Minor. St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., IH, n, 9)

tells us of people, who, in order not to admit the manifesta-

tions of the Holy Ghost, rejected St. John's Gospel, where

1TERTULIIAN, Adv. Praxeam, i.

"

2 ST. OPTATUS, Conba Parmenianum, I, 9. ST. AUGUSTINE, De Jtaeresibus,

86.*EUSEB., E. E., V, xvi, 20-22. In some churches attached to Montanism,

a prophecy of Quintilla or of Priscilla gave rise to strange customs. The proph-etess in a dream had seen Christ, under the form of a woman, descend towards

her and impart wisdom to her. From this it was inferred that women could,

as well as men, enter into the clergy and exercise liturgical functions. Seven

virgins, clad in white garments, would appear with lighted lamps before the

assembly and then, as if violently agitated by the Holy Ghost, exhort the

people to do penance (ST. EPEPHANTDS, Eacres. XL3X, i, 2). In the 4th cen-

tury, the Montanists were accused of sacrificing a child whose blood was drawnin the Holy Mysteries (PHTLASTKICTS, 49; ST. EPEPHANIUS, Eaer. XLVHI, 14)

St. Jerome, who relates this accusation (Epist. XLI, 4), does not accept it as

true; as a matter of fact, there is nothing to justify it4 Eist. Ecdes., H, 32. Elsewhere (VH, 18), he remarks that one of their

special customs was to celebrate Easter always on the 8th day of the Ides of

April, or, if that day was not a Sunday, on the following Sunday.


this outpouring is announced. By bringing together this text

and the details recorded by St. Epiphanius (Haer. LI) and

Philastrius (60), we are led to see in these dissenters the

Alogi, whose origin thus would go back to the years lyo-iSo.1

What St. Epiphanius relates about them is very plain and

simple.2

They reject the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St.

John, which they ascribe to Cerinthus, asserting that these

books are not worthy to be received in the Church (3): hence

they do not admit likewise the Logos preached by the Apostle

(3, 18), and because of this, truly deserve to be styled a\oyoi,

(without reason, 3). However, St. Epiphanius does not think

that their dislike for the term Xo'ryo? leads them to deny the

Son's person on the contrary, he states that they agree

generally with the Church, nor even that their refusal to

accept the fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse springs from an

anti-Montanistic tendency: we draw this last conclusion

chiefly from the comparison of his remarks with the passageof St. Irenaeus.

On the other hand, this anti-Montanistic tendency seems

quite manifest in the presbyter Caius, who, a few years later,

about the year 210, rejected, not the Gospel, but theApocalypseof St. John, and this, in a work against the Montanists.3

In any case, it cannot be inferred from these facts that the

canonical character of the fourth Gospel was not yet ac-

knowledged about the years 170-180. As to the Apocalypse,

1 Sources: ST. IREN^ETTS, Adv. haer., m, n, 9. PHILASTRIUS, 60. ST.

EPIPHANIUS, Boer. LI. EUSEB., H. E., HE, 28, i. Works: ZAHN, Geschichte

des neutestamentt. Kanons, I, 220-262. HARNACK, Das Neue Testament um das

Jahr 200, Friburg in Brisgau, 1889. CORRSEN, Monarchianische Prologe zur

den vier Evangelien, Leipsic, 1896. ROSE, Aloges asiates et remains, in the Revue

Biblique, vol. VI, 1897. The works on Montanism.2 St. Epiphanius drew his information apparently from the Syntagma of

St. Hippolytus, and from another work, probably of the same author, directed

specially against the Alogi (HARNACK, Lehrb. der D G., I, p. 661, note 2; Hist,

of Dogma, vol. ITT, p. 15, note i).1EUSEB,, H, E., m, 28, i; cf, H, 25, 6.


the case is somewhat different: it is well known that this book,which had been received in the West many years before that

time, had great difficulty in winning a definitive place in the

canon of the Eastern Churches,1

| 8,

We may say here a few words on this error which was much

spread in the second and third centuries, though it never hadthe character of a fixed and authorized teaching.

Millenarianism was a legacy from Judaism. The Jews, as

it is well known, expected a temporal Messianic rule, the dura-

tion of which was sometimes said to be 1000 years. As Jesushad not fulfilled this expectation in His first advent, manyChristians placed its fulfilment at the time of His second

coming. The Son of man was to come down upon earth in a

glorious state and rule for a thousand years with the just over

a renewed Jerusalem; and this period would be followed by the

general resurrection, the judgment and the end of all things,

the everlasting happiness of the elect and the eternal loss of

the wicked. It should be observed that in this opinion the

retribution that follows death was only temporary, and that

the definitive retribution was to take place after the last

judgment.In fact, this is very nearly what we read in the Apocalypse,

and there is no doubt that Millenarianism owed its success

chiefly to that book, too narrowly interpreted. Moreover, cer-

tain calculations, based on the data of the Bible, and deter-'

1ETTSEB., H. E., in, 28, 3, ff.; VII, 25.

2 ATZBERGER, GescMchte d&r christUchen Eschatokgit innerkdfo der wrnv-

cttnischen Zett, Friburg in Brisgau, 1896. TEEB.Y, BibKcal Apocalyptics, NewYork, 1898. V. EEMONT, Les phases successwes de Verrewr millenariste, in the

Revue des Questions historiques, vol. LXX, 1901. GOT, Le MJU&narisme dans

ses engines et son d&oeloppement* Paris, 1904*14

mining the ages of the world and their consummation, helped

probably in the same direction.

Cerinthus is the first accused by the presbyter Caius and by

Dionysius of Alexandria of having upheld Millenarianism and

explained the delights of the Millennium in the grossest man-

ner.1 Later on, the Montanists made it the ordinary topic of

their preaching.

Besides these teachers who were more or less suspect, it

reckoned among its followers men of an unquestioned ortho-'

doxy: such as Papias and the author of the Epistle of Barna-

bas, already mentioned; St. Justin, who quotes, to prove its

existence, texts from Isaias and the Apocalypse,2though, on

the authority of St. Luke (2o35 ' 36

), he excludes from it sexual

pleasures; St. Irenaeus, who adopts it most eagerly as an

argument against the Gnostics in behalf of the resurrection

of the body, and very plainly accuses of heresy (haereticos

sensus in se habentes) all those who think that the souls of the

just ascend to God immediately after death.3 Millenarianism

prevailed probably chiefly in Western Asia where St. John's

memory was carefully preserved. St. Irenaeus was a native of

that province and the Montanists dwelt not far from it. Withthese names we may also associate those of Methodius of

Olympus,4Apollinaris of Laodicea. 5 The error spread as far

as Egypt. In the first half of the third century, we find it

maintained there by a bishop, Nepos, under its coarsest form,in a work entitled

vE\e<y%o5 a\\^opiffr&v^ and by a certain

Coracion, who had on his side whole dioceses.6 As regards the

rest of Africa, Tertullian's authority probably helped to

spread and maintain the doctrine there. We find it fully dis-

*EUSEB., E. JE., m, 28, 2, 4, s; vn, 25, 3.

2Dialogue, 80, 81.

* Adv. haer.t V, 28-36.

4Symposium, IX, 5.

8 ST. BASIL, Epist. CCLXHI, 4.8ETJSEB., H. E.} VII, 24,

played in the poems of Commodian,1and, at the beginning of

the fourth century, in the Divine Institutions of Lactantius.2

In Styria, about the same time, Victorinus, bishop of Pettau

(+303), held it also, as St. Jerome relates.3

However, the Millenarian opinion was far from beingshared by all, and we see early and vigorous protests raised

against it. St. Justin does not hesitate to own that manyorthodox Christians do not admit it;

4 this is also what St.

Irenaeus seems to imply, for those whom he opposes putanturrecte credidisse, he says (Adv. haer., V, 31, i). In the beginningof the third century, the presbyter Caius is, at Rome, its de-

cided opponent,6 and Origen

6 starts against it a campaignwhich his disciple, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, will carry on

with spirit.7 The great allegorist was not at a loss to explain

away the texts from Scripture that might have been objectedto him, nor was he slow to style slaves to the letter (solius

litterae disciputi) and judaizers those who were moved by such

passages. As to Dionysius, he went still further, and in order

to deprive Nepos and Coracion of their strongest support, he

did not hesitate to declare, after a bold study of the problem,that the Apocalypse could not be the work of St. John the

Apostle.

Millenarianism did not outlive the fifth century. In the East

the Cappadocians, disciples of Origen, turned against it the

strength of their authority. In the West, St. Augustine, who,as he himself tells us, professed it for a while, undermined its

foundation, by giving an orthodox explanation of the Apoca-

1 Carmen Apologeticum, verses 975, ff.; InstnuMones, II, 3, 39.a

Institut. di-oinae, Vtt, 22, 24.8 De Viris Must., 18.4 noXXods 5* a5 icai TWV T^S Ka0apas /cal fl<re|3ovs

IL^ ypupl&o> (Dialog., 80).* EUSEB., H. K, m, 28, i, 2.

De principtis, n, 2, folL

., H. E*, Vin, 24, 25.


lypse: for him the kingdom of Christ was nothing else than

the Church upon earth.1 The error gradually disappeared,

though it was revised later, during the Middle Ages, by some

sects of visionaries.

On the whole, the Church paid but little attention to that

erroneous view; nor does she seem to have seen in it a very

great danger. Sprung from Judaism, Millenarianism shared

the weakness and unimportance which, after the rise of

Christianity, characterized all that pertained to the Syna-

gogue of old. True, he clearness with which it seemed to be

contained in the Apocalypse at first contributed to its beingreceived or tolerated by many, and the Montanistic movementdid but increase its success and the number of its adherents.

But the current that drove intelligences farther and farther

from Jewish conceptions, the custom of interpreting the Scrip-

tures more freely and even in an allegorical manner, and

finally the obscurity which was felt more and more to surround

the Apocalypse, all this gradually turned away the minds of

Christians from Millenarianism and brought them back to a

more spiritual and simple view of the orthodox eschatology.

1 De civitate Dei, XX, 7, foil.

CHAPTER V

THE DOCTRINAL STRUGGLE AGAINST HEATHENISM BEGINNINGS

OF SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY THE APOLOGISTS OP THE

i, General Remarks about the Apologists.

THE name of Apologists has been given, from an immemorial

ecclesiastical custom, to a group of writers, who in the second

1 The editions quoted are indicated below. Works: G. Scmnrr, Die Apolo-

gie der drei ersten Jahrhunderie in kistorisch-systematischer Darstettung, Mentz,1890. J. ZAHN, Die apologetischen Grundgedanken in der IMeratur der ersten

drei Jakrkunderte systematise}* dargesteUt, Wurzburg, 1890. L. DUCEESNE,Les T&moins Antinic&ens du dogme de la TrinitS, Amiens, 1883. About Aris-

tides: M. PICARD, UApologie d'Aristide, Paris, 1892. About St. Justin:C. SEBOSCH, Justin der Martyrer, Breslau, 1840-1842. M. VON ENGELHARDT,Das Ckristentum Justin des Martyrer, Erlangen, 1878. A. STAEHUN, Justin

der Martyrer, Leipsic, i88a J. SPRINZL, Die TJteolcgie des hi. Justin&s des

Martyrs, in the Theolog-prakt. Quartalscfoift, 1884-1886. C. CLEMEN, Die

religions-philosophische Bedentung des stoisch-christlichen Eudamonismus in

Justins Apokgie, Leipsic, 1890. W. FLEIDONG, Zur BeurteUung des Christen-

tums Justins des Martyrers, Leipsic, 1893. On the special points of St* Justin's

theology/ cf. the works referred to by BAEDENHEWEE, Geschichte der attkirck-

lichen Ltiteratur, I, pp. 240, ff. About Tatian: H. A. DANIEL, Tatianus der

Apologet, Halle, 1837. W. STEUER, Die Gottes-und Logoskhre des Tatians,

Leipsic, 1893. B. PONSCHAB, Tatians Rede an die Griechen, Mettea, 1895.A. PUECH, Recherches sur le Discours aux Grecs de Tatien, Paris, 1903. OnAthenagoras: F. SCHUBEING, Die Philosopkie des Athenagoras, Berlin, 1882.

J. LEHMANN, Die Auferstehungslehre des Athenagoras, Leipsic, 1890. L. Ait-

NOULD, De Apologia Athenagorae, Paris, 1898. About TheopMus of Antioch:

L. PAUL, Der Begriff des Glaubens bei dem Apologeten Theopkttus, in the Jahrb.

f. protest. Theologie, vol. I, 1875. O. GROSS, Weltenstehungslehre des TheophUusvon Antiochia

t Leipsic, 1895. 0. GROSS, Die Gotteslehre des TheopMus von

Antiocbia, Chemnitz, 1896. About the Epistle to Diognetus: J. DRAESEKE,


and even in the third century, endeavored to clear the Chris-

tians from the reproach of crimes ascribed to them under the

influence of ill-will and prejudice, to obtain for them tolerance

and the fair application of the laws, to show that the doctrine

they professed rightly claimed the attention, the respect, and

even the assent of thoughtful minds.

Thus understood in a restricted sense, the name of Apolo-

gists can be applied to about fifteen authors, several of whom,however, deserve only a mention, since their works are com-

pletely or almost completely lost: such as Quadratus (about

125-126), Aristo (135-165), Rhodon (before 172), Miltiades

(about 150), Apollinaris of Hierapolis (160-176), Melito (175-

180). The only ones we can study here are (i) Aristides,

Apology to Antoninus Pius (136-161) ;

*(2) St. Justin: First

Apology (150-155); Second Apology (150-160); Dialogue with

Trypko, published soon after the first Apology, and probablybefore 161

;

2(3) Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos, about 165;

3(4)

Athenagoras, Supplicatio pro Christianis (176-178); De resur-

rectione mortuorum 4(5) Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Auto-

lycumlibritres (169-182) ;

5(6) The Epistle to DiognetuSjpiob-

ably in the second century;6

(7) Minucius Felix, Octavius

(probably i8o~end of the second century) ;

7(8) Tertullian,

Der Brief an Dwgnetos, Leipsic, 1881. S. BALJON, De "Brief an Diognetus, in

Ike Theolog. Studien, 1900. About Minucius Felix: P. DE FfciiCE, Etude sur

I'Octamus de Minutius Felix, Blois, 1880. R. KUEHN, Der OUamus des Minucius

Felix, Leipsic, 1882. O. GEILLNBERGER, Studio* zw Philosophic der pafris-tischen Zeit, I, Der Oktorius des Minucius Felix in the Jahrb. f. Philos. und

spekul. Tkeol., vol. ni, 1889. G. BOISSIEH, La Fin du Paganisme, I, Paris, 1891.1 The Apology of Aristides on behalf of the Christians, edit. J. RENDEL HARRIS

and J. AJRMITAGE ROBINSON, Texts and Studies, I, i, Cambridge, 1891.*Corpus Apologetarum Ckristianorum saecuti secundi, edidit DE OTTO,

vol I, II; 3rd ed., Jena, 1886, 1887.* Edit. OTTO, op. tit., VI, ist edit., 1851.4 Edit. OTTO, op. tit., VH, ist edit., 1857.1 Edit OTTO, op. tit., VHI, ist edit., 1861.9 Edit. FUHK, Pafres Apostoliti, 1, 1901.

APOLOGISTS OF THE SECOND CENTURY 205

Apologeticum (probably fall of 197) ;* (9) Hennias, Irrisio

gentilium philosophorum (third century?) ;

2(10) Finally

several works ascribed to St. Justin, though at least the first

three are not truly his: Epos "EXXTjz/as, placed by Harnackbetween the years 180 and 240; Acfyo? Trapawert/cbs wposTSXX^-va$, which, according to Bardenhewer, belongs to the same

epoch; Ttepl Oeov povapxfa, perhaps of the third century, and

Hepi avacrrda-ew (150-180), with which TertuUian and St.

Irenaeus were acquainted and whose authorship there is no

reason to deny to St. Justin.3

Now, in their writings specially devoted to the defence of

religion, these Apologists aim chiefly, of course, at justifying

Christianity and setting it forth as a harmless doctrine, re-

spectful of the established order and institutions,4 and more-

over in harmony with reason whose data she confirms and

completes. Hence they are led to insist on her doctrines of

natural religion, and on those teachings of hers which agree

with the teachings of the great schools of spiritualistic phi-

losophy: the unity of God, the future life, the moral law and

its sanction beyond the grave; or, if they speak of her myster-

ies, they do so to show that between these mysteries and car-

tain beliefs of Heathenism, the distance is not so great as one

might think at first sight. Thus presented, Christianity as-

sumes the appearance of a most lofty human wisdom, of a most

refined religion which, in some respects, approaches the reli-

gions then known. However, this concept alone is far from

being the full expression of their minds. We know that their

creed included something more. It included particularly

distinctly supernatural and Christian truths, which we meet

either in those of their writings destined for the faithful, or in

1 Edit. (EELER, Leipsic, 1853, vol I.

2 Edit. OTTO, op. tit., IX, ist edit^ 1872.* Edit. OTTO, op. c&~> HI, 3rd edit, 1879.a. tfae^isfe^ Diag*&u$, V, 1-6.

so6 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

their apologies to the Heathen and to the Jews, for even in

these last works they manifest sometimes their whole faith.

The Apologists are not, then, mere philosophers; they are also

believers; so that to infer from their silence that they were

ignorant of certain mysteries is to expose oneself to many mis-

takes. This silence is generally too well accounted for, to

enable one to draw therefrom an argument against them.1

However, to study them properly, we ought to distinguish

this twofold standpoint and consider them successively both

as defenders and as teachers of the faith.

3. The Apologetics of the Apologists, and their concept of Revelation,

As we have seen, the task of the Apologists as such, was two-

fold: they intended, on one hand, to justify Christianity and

win her tolerance and respect; on the other, to show her

reasonableness and increase the number of her followers.

The first point was a question of mere juridical examination

and discussion. The Christians were accused of atheism and

impiety; they were charged with worshipping no god and

despising those of the Empire, with rebelling therefore againstthe authority of the laws, and were considered as guilty of

high treason against the Emperor and the nation. They were

accused, moreover, of infanticide and cannibalism, of ban-

quets of Thyestes; and finally of wicked actions and of

shameful incests, like that of (Edipus.2 These calumnies could

only be answered by emphatic denials and an appeal to facts.

Truly, though the Christians do not worship the gods and

* [On the other hand, cL also NEWMAN, Development of Christian Doctrine,

pp. 27, 28 and chiefly 29. T],* These are the three headings of accusations summed up by Athenagoras:

ic., 3. Cf. EUSEB., H. K, V, I, 9; TERTUIIIAN, Apologet,, 10).


idols of Heathenism, they are not atheists and irreligious men.

They are not enemies of the Empire, who, while giving up all

earthly ambition, pray for the prosperity of the State and the

welfare of the Emperors, and who, absolutely loyal to their

country, while striving to make men virtuous, aim by this very-

fact at supplying the State with its best citizens.1 As to the

crimes and shameful deeds of which they are accused, the gen-eral purity of their morals, their dislike for the sights and

games of the circus suffice to clear them from such accusations:

accusations which, on the other hand, might rightly be brought

against the Pagans.2

And then, these crimes have never been established: nay,

they have not been even inquired into; hence it is sheer in-

justice, when the Christians are condemned solely because of

their name and quality of Christians, before being proved

guilty and allowed to use a right which is not denied to other

accused persons: that of defending themselves and showingtheir innocence.3

However interesting may be this first part of the defence

made by the Apologists, yet it is not the one that chiefly con-

cerns our subject: for our purpose here is to know in what

light they presented Christianity to their adversaries, andwhat was their idea of her relations both to Philosophy andto the other religions then in vogue.

Philosophy was, in the second century, the best, nay the

only ground on which enlightened minds could meet, to what-

ever religion they belonged. Nevertheless, all Apologists did

not observe towards it the same attitude. Though Tatian,

1 ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. I, 6, 9, 11-13; TATIAN, 4; ATHENAGOKAS, SuppUc.,

4-io> 37; TEEOPEILUS, I, 2-7; MINUCTUS, 32; TERTOLLIAN, 10, u, 17, 30-32,

36.2 ST. JUSTIN, Apolog., I, 15-17, 26, 27, 29; TATIAN, 25; ATHENAG., Supplic.,

32-35; THEOFEULUS, m, 3, 15; Ep. to Diogn., V, 7-16; VI; MINUCTUS, 28-31;

TERTUIXIAN, 2, 7, 8.

8 ST. JUSTIN, ApoL, I, 2; ATHENAG., Supptic., i, 2; TERTULLTAN, 2, 3,

Tertullian and Hermias do not pass a wholesale condemna-

tion on any kind of philosophy, but only on the proud science

that rejects God and thinks it can solve by itself the problems

of our origin and destiny, still undoubtedly they are rather

unfavorable to any philosophical system and take great delight

in laughing Philosophers to scorn.1 On the contrary, the other

Apologists, who themselves had been Philosophers before em-

bracing Christianity and had remained such after, appealedmore often to the authority of Philosophy and endeavored to

show that the new religion agreed with it in the main. St. Jus-

tin is the one who understood and exposed this harmony on the

broadest scale.

He starts with laying down as a principle that Christianity is

a philosophy, the only safe and useful philosophy; and that

by embracing it, one is and remains a true philosopher:

fjidvqv eupurjcov (j>L\ocro<j>Lav a<7<<zX?} re /ecu <rvp<t>opov.

Srj teal Sta ravra <^Xo<ro0o9 eyo> (Dialog., 8).2 For between

the teachings of Christianity and those of the best philosoph-ical schools there exists a similarity, nay, an identity, that

cannot be denied. The differences between them are shades

rather than oppositions (Apolog. II, 13), On several pointsfaith affirms the very truths already professed by Plato,

Menander and the Stoics: but it affirms them more fully and

with a divine authority; and it not only affirms, it provesthem also.

3

How is this similarity to be accounted for? In two ways,

says St. Justin. The first explanation, he found ready made in

the teaching of the Alexandrian Jews, and the other Apologists

adopted it after him: it is to the effect that the Philosophersknew the Old Testament literature and drew therefrom the

1TAHAN, 1-3; TERTULUAN, 46; HERMIAS, the whole work.

1 Tatian (35) calls likewise the Christian doctrine fj a0* ^tub pdpfiapos 0iAo-

fefc* xai pfoot fter' <b*adee0s (Apolog. I, 20).

truths they transmitted to us.1 The second, of which he him-self is the author, is that the divine Logos which at the origin

of Christianity appeared under a human shape, as a matter

of fact has always been at work and continually manifestingHimself in the world. Among the Jews, He showed Himself

in theophanies, He spoke by the Prophets and taught by the

sacred writers. Among the Pagans, too, He spoke and taught

by the Philosophers. These of course possessed Him only in

part (KO,T& pepos) : hence they have adopted erroneous views

and reached the light with difficulty (&' evpetreax /cal 9ea>pia<i) ;

nevertheless the seed of the Word, the seminal Word (meppaTOV Xo'7ou, oTTrep/wm/eo? 0eto5 Xo'yos), which was infused, from

the beginning, into every human mind, dwelt in them, and

by its help, they were enabled to discover the truths they pro-

claimed, of which He was, so to speak, the parent (avtyyeves).

Hence there can be no opposition between Philosophy and

Christianity. All those who lived with the Logos are Chris-

tians, even though, during their lives, they may have been

considered atheists. Such were, among the Greeks, Soc-

rates and Heraditus; among the Barbarians, Abraham, An-

anias, Azarias and others. Anything good and true that wasever uttered in the whole world belongs to the Christians:

*O(ra oZvirapa TTOVI Ka\3x dprjrai f\p&v r&v XpurnavStv !<rn.2

One can easily perceive the comprehensiveness of such a

doctrine, which makes Philosophy a part of Christianity and

seems to represent Jesus Christ only as continuing and crown-

ing the work of Socrates.3 Does St. Justin, then, place be-

tween Philosophy and the revealed Religion a mere difference

of degree in the manifestation of the same truth, and does he

really think that the Philosophers have been inspired by God,

1Apolog. I, 44, 59; TAHAN, 40; XEEOPHILUS, n, 37, 38; MINUCHTS, 34;

TERTULLIAN, 47.*Apokg. n, 13, 8, 10; Apolog. 1, 46.

2io THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

in the proper sense of the word, though in a limited measure?

We do not think so. Though he nowhere expresses himself

very clearly and seems here and there to speak of the c-Tre/^a-

n/w Acfyo? as the personal and uncreated Word,1

still it is

more probable that, after all, he designates by this word humanreason alone, derived indeed from the divine Wisdom, but itself

created and finite. For he remarks, as we have said, that this

seed of the Word is deposited in all men,2and, he observes

"the seed and imitation imparted according to the capacity

[of him who receives it] is one thing, and quite a different one

is the being itself, of which the communication and the like-

ness is received through His grace."3

Now, this image of the Word has of course enabled the Phi-

losophers to find out important truths, though not with the

certainty and fulness which ought to have been reached.

Sometimes, nay often, they have fallen into error, either be-

cause they possessed the Logos only imperfectly, or because

the devil, the enemy of mankind, dragged them into falsehood.

But with the Word incarnate, the full light has come: there

is then no reason why one should still cling to an incom-

plete philosophy, to a half-truth which, besides, has been

unable to enlighten and morally to improve the people: It is

necessary to accept Christianity.4

Thus, though he acknowledged the efficacy of reason in as

much as it is a more or less immediate participation in the

divine intelligence, nevertheless St. Justin still proclaimedafter all the moral necessity of revelation: a thesis that wasconfirmed by the lamentable sight which the history of

Paganism offered to the eyes of the impartial spectator.As a matter of fact, that history was the history of all kinds

of crimes and absurdities: if its data* concerning the gods

1Apolog. 1, 10, 46; Apolog. U, 13.

2Apolog. U, 8.

*Apolog. n, 13.

*Apolog. I, 9, 44, 54, 64; Apolog. H, 10, 13.


were to be interpreted literally, Heathen mythology was noth-

ing but a school of immorality. Naturally the Apologists did

not fail to point out this feature of Paganism and to urge it

against their adversaries;1

they went further still and asked

themselves why polytheism and idolatry had come into this

world. The moral cause thereof they found in Satan's craft.

He it is who, in order to pervert man, to separate him from

God and enslave him to himself, has striven to act in such a

way as to be considered a god. He has concealed himself in

statues and has crept under images, he has taken hold of the

soothsayers, made the entrails of the victims throb, guided the

flight of birds, uttered deceitful oracles, and thus has drawn to

himself adorations under the guise of idols whose worship he

inspired. "Aemulantur [daemones] divinitatem," writes Ter-

tullian, "dum furantur divinationem." 2 As to the historical

origin of Paganism, though the Apologists know of the theorythat sees in the gods personifications of the forces of nature,

3

they take rather that theory which regards these gods as

famous men of antiquity, who have been honored as divinities,

sometimes for their merits and services, sometimes also, and

too often, for their vices.4

But the Apologists did not address themselves in their

writings to the Heathen alone, they addressed themselves to the

Jews also. The latter were to a great extent responsible for

the persecutions raised against the Christians, for they had

contributed to spread abroad the calumnies which were re-

peatedly heaped upon the followers of Jesus, and still con-

1ABISITDES, 8-13; ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. H, 14; TATIAN, 21, 25; AIHENAG.,

Supplic., 20-21; THEOPHILUS, I, 9; III, 3, 8; Mnsrucrus, 22; TERTDXIIAN, 21.

2 TERTUIIIAN, 22; TATIAN, 12, 16-18; ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. I, 54, 64;

MINUCIUS, 27.1ARISTIDES, 3-6, 13; ATHENAG,, Supplic., 22; TERTDLUAN, Ad Natioties,

IL, i; HERMIAS, 6.

* ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. I, 9; ATHENAG., Supplic., 28-30; THEOPHILUS, 1, 10;

II, 2; HI, 3, 8; MINUCTUS, 21, 23; TERTUUIAN, 10, u.


tinued to pursue them with their hatred and accusations.1

Moreover, by speaking to the Jews, the Apologists perfected

their demonstration of the truth of Christianity. Against the

Pagans, they proved the absurdity of polytheism and the

noble and essentially beneficial character of Christianity. Byperusing the Sacred Books merely as works of a most ancient

literature, they went still further, and in the name of the proph-

ecies, claimed for the new Religion the right to be believed.

The agreement of those prophecies with the events provedtheir divinity, and consequently the divinity of Christianity.

St. Justin had already developed this argument in his first

Apology (30-53). But in the controversy with the Jews, this

argument was still stronger, since, as both parties agreed in

admitting that the Prophets had written /cwtfcravTo? avrovs

rov BeCov TTvevparos? the authority of these Prophets suf-

ficed to settle the dispute. Now their authority was in every

point favorable to Christianity. These thoughts are exposedat length in the Dialogue with Trypho (63, ff.) in which the

author sets forth the details of the prophecies that have been

fulfilled- Taken as a whole, St. Justin's argumentation is

forcible; but we need scarcely remark how loose and weakit is often in various details, when judged by our standard of

textual and historical criticism.

So, the writings of the Jews contained the Christian truth:

they are our property more than the Synagogue's. With the

new Economy, the old Law that had prepared it came to anend: it is abolished; Israel is no longer God's people: Chris-

tians are the spiritual Israel.3

1 ST. JUSTIN, Dialog.) 16, 17, 108, 122, 123; Apolog. I, 31, 36,2ATHEBTAG., Supplic., 9; ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. I, 30, 31, 36.

8 ST. JUSTIN, Dialog., n, 29, 43; Epist. to Diognetus, IV.


3. The Christian Doctrine in the Apologists.1

What is the doctrine of this new Israel? As has been al-

ready remarked, we should not expect to find in the Apolo-

gists a full exposition of it, but only some elements, which it is

quite important for us to point out.

First we need scarcely remark that our authors consider as

equally inspired the books both of the Old and of the New Tes-

tament and ascribe to the latter an authority like that of the

former, though perhaps they do not place both on the same

footing. It is the divine Word, says St. Justin, who movedthe Prophets;

2 but Paul's word, Theophilus observes, is also

God's word (detos Xo'yo?, Ill, 14, cf. 13), and one and the

same Spirit of God has spoken through all the TrvevfiaTo^poi

(III, 12). These have been the mouthpiece by which Heexpressed Himself, the lyre of which He Himself struck

the chords.3

However, it is not from Scripture that the Apologists usually

borrow their concept of God. As they are Philosophers, theyascend to Him by the argument of causality

4 or by the teleo-

logical argument,6 and conceive Him as transcendent and in-

finitely superior to anything we can say or think of Him:"Ideo sic eum aestimamus dum inaestimabilem dicimus. . . .

Aufer additamenta nominum et perspicies ejus claritatem." 6

Nevertheless, to Him should be ascribed definite attributes,

as well as the preeminent fulness of all the physical and moral

perfections that can be found in creation. 7

1 In the following exposition, we do not include TertulliaE, of whom wetreat later on.

2Apolog, I, 36.

8 ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. I, 36; ATHENAG., Svpplic., 9; Cohortatio ad G&itiles,

8.4AEISTIDES, i; TATIAN, 4, 5; TKEOPHTLUS, 1, 3-7.

6 Mnrocnis, 17-19.* METUCXUS, 18; AKISTIDES, i; ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. I, 61; TATIAN, 4,t AEISTIDES, i; THEOPHILUS, 1, 3, 4.

This creation is His work: He drew it from nothing (e OVK

omw/ 1), not however directly by Himself, but by His

Word: for the Apologists encounter the same difficulty as

Plato and Philo, in their attempts to reconcile with their

transcendent conception of a God infinite, immutable and

perfect, the creation of a world finite, imperfect and mutable.

Between the God of their philosophy and the contingent beings,

an intermediary is needed. Following on the footsteps of St.

John (i3), they find it in the Word. This doctrine, which thus

was based on Scripture, helped moreover to set forth the

harmony between the two orders of creation and of redemp-

tion, a harmony which had been destroyed by Gnosis. TheWord which was creator was also the revealer and redeemer

of the New Covenant.

What idea do the Apologists present us of the Word? There

are in the statements made on this topic by the chief amongthem, elements that have not the same value nor the same

origin. Some of these elements, derived from tradition, are

true and correct: they constitute, as it were, the staple of the

Apologists' teaching. But, besides, on these elements of tra-

dition, as a basis, the authors just mentioned strove, under

the influence of Platonic and Philoni^n philosophy, to build

reasonings and theories; and these theories are far from beingfelicitous. They contain let us say it with simplicity

they contain errors which enjoyed a certain success, though

they came gradually to be known as errors and later on were

rejected.

Let us examine the traditional elements first.

The unity of God is emphatically affirmed and maintained,2

1THEOPHILUS, H, 10; ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. I, 64; Dialog., n; TATIAN, 5;

ATHENAG., Supplic., 4. St. Justin, it is true, speaks in a passage (Apolog. I,

10; cf. 59,. 67) of an organization of the world <? fydpfov 11X175, which would notbe a true creation: but he seems rather to refer to an opinion of Plato.

2 ST. JUSTIN, Dialog., n; TATIAN, 5; ATHENAG., Supplic. t 4; THEOPHILUS,HI, 9; MENUOUS, 18, 19.


while at the same time three terms are distinguished in God:the Father, the Son or the Word, and the Holy Ghost.1 The

Father is preeminently the God, o ovrw Sea?,2though the

Word too is God. All the chapters 56-62 of the Dialoguewith Trypho are devoted exclusively to the proof that alongwith the supreme God there is another God who is more than

an Angel, truly God: ffebs KaXelrcu KOI 0ed$ ea-n xal etrnu,

(58). These words are not, on the part of the Apologists,

an expression uttered more or less inconsiderately; they are

part of a teaching exposed after thought and deliberation.

The Word is preexisting and prior to any creature: He is

God before all creation: irpb Troitfaew XOCT/JLOV 8vra deov?

Hence He Himself is not a creature, /cricr/jLa or iroirffia.

Though the text of Proverbs (S22): /cupio? Ixrure fie, is too

often applied to Him v. g., St. Justin, Dialog., 61 still

the term the most often used to designate His origin is that of

yevvav* The Word is neither made nor created: He is be-

gotten, and being begotten, He is Son of God. St. Justinconnects the divine Sonship, not with the Incarnation, as

perhaps St. Ignatius does but with a generation that pre-ceded creation. The Word who, one day, is to be Jesus

Christ, is the Son of God, the only one who is such pre-

eminently: *O Se v/05 G/CGIVOV {Qeov) 6 /JLOVOS \yo/jvo$ /cvpfay$

vw, o Xo'709 Trpo T&V iroLrj/jLarc^v. (Apolog. H, 6.)

Hence and because of this generation, the Son is distinct

from the Father. The distinction is more or less clearly set

forth by the Apologists: St. Justin insists strongly upon it.

The Son is other than God tlie Creator, other numerically,

1 ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. I, 6, 13; ATHENAG., Supplic., 12, 24;

I, 7; H, 15, 18.

2 ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. 1, 13.8 ST. JUSTIN, Dialog., 56, 48, 61; TATIAN, 5; ATHENAG., Svpplic,, 10;

THEOPHILUS, n, 10, 22.

4 ST. JUSTIN, Dialog., 61; Apolog. I, 22, 23; Apolog. H, 6; TATIAN, 5, 7;

ATHENAG., Supptic* 10; THEOPHILUS, n, 10, 22.

though in agreement with Him: erepds earn rov Trdvra

c-avTos ffeov, apidpS) \<ya>, a\\a ov JV^/JLTJ (Dialog., 56). He is

distinct from the Father, not merely in name, as the light is

distinct from the sun, but numerically He is some one else:

apidpu erepov *rt e<m (Dialog., 128). Tatian and Athenagorasuse equivalent expressions,

1 and we know the famous dis-

tinction between the Xo<yo? evSidQeros and the ^0709 Trpofyo-

PIKOS, of Theophilus of Antioch, the first to apply it to the

divine Word (II, 22).

So then, the Word is truly God, Son of God, begotten byHim, and really distinct from the Father. This is the whole

substance of the Nicene definition; and to get that defini-

tion itself, it would suffice to apply to these premises a sound

logic and a precise terminology. This our authors failed to do :

their stumbling-block was the problem of creation. God is

eternal, immutable: and yet, at a certain moment, He has

created outside of Himself. Has any change, then, taken

place in Him? They seem to give an affirmative answer, and

to say that there has been the bringing forth (uttering), the

generation of the Word.

The Word was in God from all eternity; that God has al-

ways been \Qyt,/cd$, all admit.2 How did the Word exist in

God? As a person distinct from the Father or as a mere power,as immanent reason? The Apologists do not give a clear an-

swer. Two texts of St. Justin have been pointed out (Apolog.

H, 6; Dialog., 61) that seem to favor the latter view; but

they are not explicit enough to be interpreted with certaintyin this sense, and in this sense alone. The holy Doctor goesback before creation: he regards the Word as personal Godbefore all created things (Dialog., 48, 61, 62); he does not

ascend beyond; for him this is practically eternity. Tatian is

still less affirmative than his master as to the personal and1TATIAN, 5; ATHENAG., Supplic., 10.

a Ibid.

eternal existence of the Logos. In the beginning, he says, Godis alone: though He is endowed with His \oyi/cr) Swa/itswhich He brings forth (utters) at the moment of creation (5).

We find in Athenagoras (10) and in Theophilus of Antioch

(II, 10, 22) the same obscurity or rather the same discon-

certing formulas. The latter seems even to advance towards

error, with his theory of the two states of the Logos, who wasat first enclosed, as it were, in the bosom of the Father (ev&td-

fferos), existing there merely as His intelligence and sentiment

(vofc/cal <f>povr)<n$), and then afterwards brought forth (uttered)

by Him externally (irpofapiKwi).

At any rate, whether our Apologists thought the Wordreally distinct from the Father from all eternity or not, it is

before and with a view to creation that they place His beinguttered and begotten, that the Word becomes the Son.

Some attempts have been made to interpret their words so as

to give them the meaning of a mere new relation established bythe creative act, between the Word and the created beingsthemselves: but this explanation does not acc9unt for the

texts. These imply that, at the moment of creation, a changehas taken place in the inner state of the Logos. God needs the

Logos to create, produce and reach what is contingent, ex-

ternal, imperfect, mutable. Hence He draws it from His bosomas it were; He begets and brings It forth (utters), that It maybe His instrument and organ in the act of creation:

vo$ (o vlds) ore rrjv apxyv St' avrov Trdvra H/cnae teal

6 ffefc (Sx. JUSTIN, Apolog. H, 6; cf. Dialog., 61).

jrpoe\0v (TATIAN, 5; AXHENAG., Supplic., 10. )'

(0eo?) avrbv (TOP Xdyov) fj^era ri}? eavrov cro<j){a$

/jievos Trpb r&v o\a>v> Tovrov rbv \oyov eyevvqc-e vrpofopi/edv

(THEOPHILUS, H, 10, 22). Thus produced to be the help of

God (vTrovpyo?) in creation, the Word is in one sense the first

born of this creation: 7rpa>ToVo/eo<? Trda-r^ #Twr6>? (THEO-

PHILUS, H, 10, 22), the epjov irparoToicQv (TAHAN, 5)* j

ai8 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

This is the doctrine of the temporal generation of the Logos:the Word, Word from all eternity, has become Son only at a

certain moment, the moment that preceded creation. But this

bringing forth (utterance) let it be observed once more is

a true generation, not a production ex nihilo. The Son was not

made, remarks Athenagoras, like something that did not exist

before (ov% o>9 yevdpevov, Supplic., 10) : He partakes of the

nature of the Father who begets Him. The word yevvav

is the one that is used most often to characterize His

origin.1

By this generation, then, is the Son separated from the

Father, so that the latter is deprived of His Word and His

substance divided? By no means. The Word, writes Tatian,

"arises from a distribution, not from a division. What is

divided is cut off from that from which it is divided; while

what is distributed implies a voluntary grant and causes no

defect in that from which it is drawn. For, just as from

one torch several fires are lighted and the light of the first

torch is not lessened by the fact that other torches have been

lighted from it, so the Logos did not, by coming forth from

the power of the Father, deprive of Logos Him by whom Hehad been begotten (ov/c a\o<yov TreTrofy/ce rov yeyevvrjKdTa).

I myself, for instance, talk to you and you hear me, and I whoam addressing you, by the fact that my logos is transmitted

from me to you, am not deprived of it; but by the utterance

of my word, I intend to order the confused matter that is in

you (s)."2 This is exactly what St. Justin says (Dialog., 61,

128), and what Athenagoras (Supplic., 10) and Theophilus

(H, 22) suppose. We find there, the origin of the ^9 e/c <fxord<s

of Nicaea.

However, as creation is the work of the divine will, our

1 On tliis point, however, Tatian is less explicit.2 The French translation of this passage is by PUECH, Recherches sur le Di$*

GOUTS (MAX Grecs de Totien*


Apologists ascribe likewise the generation of the Word to the

Father's will. True, they do not affirm that it comes from His

free will, but they do affirm that it comes from His will and

power (Swdpei /cal fiov\f} avrov).1

Hence, also, the Word,the Son, is subordinate to the Father, not only as man after

the Incarnation, but also as man and God. The Son is the

Father's minister: "He has ever done only what the Creator

of the world, above whbm there is no other God, wished Himto do and say." "He is at the Father's disposal and presidesover the fulfilment of His designs." No doubt, He is Godand Lord, but "under the Creator of all (VTTO TOV Tro^rrjv r&v

o\cov)"

;and it is this agreement of will that keeps up, notwith-

standing the numerical distinction, the unity which Gnostics

were anxious to break: erepos . . . api6^ Xeyo, a\\a ov

Finally, from the fact that the Word is brought forth

(uttered) for the creation, it follows that He possesses, in

order to come into contact with the finite and the contingent,an aptitude which the Father does not possess- The latter,

in as much as He is a transcendent and measureless God, can-

not appear upon earth, nor be present in a determined place;

hence the Old Testament theophanies cannot be ascribed to

Him. On the contrary, the Word is able to manifest Himself

and can be seen and contained in one place: as a matter of

fact, it is He who is spoken of in the Biblical narratives.3 This

last feature, which places between the Father and the Son

such a great dissimilarity, takes us far away, as is evident, from

the doctrine of consubstantiality; while It shows at the same

time that the doctrinal inaccuracies of the Apologists have

their source in their philosophy, in the consequences theydrew with Plato and PMLo, from God's absolute transcendence.

1 ST. JUSTIN, Dialog., 71, 127, 128; TATIAK, 5.8 ST. JUSTIN, Dialog., 56, 126, 60, 61, 127; Apokg. 1, 13.

9 ST. JUSTIN, Dialog., 60, 127; THEOPHHUS, II, 22,

This is what led them erroneously to maintain the temporal

generation of the Logos, as well as His subordination and in-

feriority. As the Son was to he the divine instrument of cre-

ation, He was to exist only together with it and be somewhat

similar to creatures. On the one hand, the philosophy of our

authors did not go so far as to make them overlook the tradi-

tional elements of doctrine taken in themselves; on the other,

under its influence, they failed to see fully and realize distinctly

the bearing and consequences of these elements.

In such a philosophy, Harnack lobserves, there is no room

for the person of the Holy Spirit. Undoubtedly: still, weshould not forget that the Apologists do not borrow their doc-

trine precisely from Philosophy. Hence they know the Holy

Spirit, the Prophetic Spirit, the image and similitude of God

(deov el/coDp jcal O/AO&XTO), a portion of God (6eov polpav) the

deacon of the suffering God (hcucovos TOV jre'irovddTosOeov)?

Athenagoras has been accused of not sufficiently distinguishing

the Holy Spirit from the Father; and it is true that he makes

of the former an emanation (aTrdppoia) of God and estab-

lishes between them the same relation as between the light

and the fire, the ray and the sun: 3 the very relation which

St. Justin judged insufficient to mark the real distinction of

persons (Dialog., 1 28) . These difficulties, however, whose bear-

ing, besides, cannot be determined with precision, do not hold

against the explicit texts in which Athenagoras names, be-

side the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit as a third term

with the same title as the two others: nay, he observes that,

though these three terms are united in power, they are distinct

as to rank: rrjv ev rg evdxrei Bvva/j,w,fcal rrjv Iv ry rd^ei Sialpe<riv*

A reproach similar to this, namely of confounding the Holy

1 Lefarb. der D G., I, p. 489; History of Dogma, voL n, pp. 208, 209.2 Sr. JUSTIN, Apokg. I, 6, 13; TATIAN, 7, 12, 13.*Supptic., 10, 24.

*Supptic., 10, 12, 24.

Spirit with the Word has been likewise made by Petavius *

against Theophilus of Antioch, because the latter calls the

Holy Spirit and the Word both by the name ofWisdom (<ro<j>ta)

and ascribes to them indiscriminately the inspiration of the

Prophets.2 But this second objection is not more conclusive

than the first: for in other passages (I, 7, u, 18), Theophilusenumerates the three terms ffeds, Xoyos, <ro<f>ta, and in book II,

15, tells us expressly that they make up a trinity (r/Mcfe),

a word which he is the first to use.

So we find in the Apologists the first sketch of a Trinitarian

doctrine. The one who summed it up best and marked most

clearly both the unity of nature and the distinction of personsis Athenagoras. The Christians, he observes, know "a Godand His Word, what is the union of the Son with the Father,what is the communication of the Father with the Son, what

is the Spirit, what is the union and the distinction of those

who are thus united, the Spirit, the Son, the Father" (Sup-

plic., 12). "The Father and the Son are but one: the Son is

in the Father, the Father in the Son in the unity and power of

the Spirit. . . . Who, then, would not be astonished to hear

these men called atheists who proclaim a God the Father, a

Son who is God, and a Holy Spirit who show their power in

the unity and their distinction by the rank?" (Supplic., 10.)

Christology did not come within the range of the discussions

between the Apologists and their Pagan antagonists. Hence if

we except St. Justin, they are rather meagre on this topic.

Aristides merely sums up the history of Jesus Christ according

to the Gospel.3 Tatian has only two words: one, already

quoted, about the suffering God (13) ;the other, which desig-

nates Jesus Christ as Qeov ez> avdp&irov jJ^op^y (21). The

Epistle to Diognetus acknowledges likewise the Saviour as

1 De Trimtoie, lib. I, cap. HI, 6.

* Ad AutolyG.] c. II, 10, 15 with. H, 22; n, to TO& H, 30, 33.*Syriac text, 2; Greek test, i$.

God (VII, 4, 8, 9), God's proper and only son (IX, 2; X, 2),

who, always being Word, has to-day become Son (XI, 4, 5:

perhaps an echo of the doctrine that regards the divine

Sonship as acquired by the human birth). This Word has be-

come man among men (VII, 4), has taught us to know God

(VIII, i) and saved us, because in Him who alone is just, the

iniquity of many has been concealed: "0 sweet substitution

(o> Trp y\vK(a$ avTa\\a^r^)\^ exclaims the author, "Ounfathomable invention! unhoped for blessing, that the

iniquity of many is hidden in one just man alone, and that the

justice of one justifies many sinners!" (IX, 5.)

St. Justin is still more complete. He does not content him-

self with demonstrating by means of the prophecies the divine

mission of Jesus Christ; this he had already done in his argu-mentations against the Pagans and the Jews; he considers also

the Incarnation and the Redemption in themselves, in their

nature,and consequences.

First of afl he notices the identity of the Word, the Son of

God and Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ is the Word, the Son of

God made flesh (<rapKO'7rot,y6ek\ who has become man.1 He

consisted of body, Logos and soul (crapa ical Xo'<yo9, teal ^v^rf,

Apolog. H? 10). Thus the holy Doctor indirectly affirms his

belief in the personal unity of Jesus Christ.

The body of Jesus was real,2 and His birth, virginal;

3St.

Justin establishes this last point by the text of Isaias, 714

: Ecce

Virgo concipiet* Nevertheless, Jesus is of our race, of the race

of Jesse, Juda, Jacob and Abraham; He passed, as we do,

through the infirmities of childhood and the growth of age;He could and did suffer, as we do, Sq\>v Sib TOVT&V 5

1 Contra Marcionem, ap. IKENAEUM, IV, 6, 2; Apokg. I, $, 23, 32, 46, 63;Apolog. n, 6; Dialog., 45, 48, 63, 84.

* De resurrectione, i, 2.

8Apolog. I, 22, 31, 32; Dialog., 45, 63, etc,

4Apolog I, 33; Dialog, 43, 66,


avQpanros yeyevyTcu: like us, He was subject to dread

and fear.1 Some (Semisch, Neafcder), founding themselves

on the second Apology, 10 (cf. above), have accused St.

Justin of not admitting in Jesus Christ a rational soul and

of ascribing its functions to the Word. But not to insist

that in this passage the holy Doctor may have given to the

word -^f%7? a broader meaning than that of animal soul, the

accusation falls to pieces when confronted with the text of

the Dialogue (105), in which the Saviour is set forth as giv-

ing up on the cross His 7n>e/*a, and asking that His soul maynot fall, like ours, under the dominion of the infernal powers.To this text we may also add the words of the 72nd chapter,

as to the descent of Jesus Christ into Hell-

However, by becoming man, the Word has not ceased being

God, and He did not need the inpouring of the Holy Spirit to

complete the gifts tha't were in Him.2 The names He has

received and still receives show that He is both God and man.

As man, He is preeminently the Just One: He is also God's

eternal priest, our priest.8

The Soteriology of St. Justin is less developed than his

Christology; yet, it would be an exaggeration to say, as has

been done, that the idea of expiation and of the substitvtio

mcaria is not at all to be found in his works. Not only does

the holy Doctor repeat that Jesus Christ has suffered for us in

order to redeem us,4 but he observes that as all men were

subject to malediction because of their sins, the Father re-

quired that His Christ should receive in Himself the maledic-

tions of all. Not that this Christ was actually cursed by God:

we were cursed by God, and He suffered for maakind.* The

1Apolog. I, 31, 32; Dialog., 43, 46, 78, 84, 88, 99, 100, 103, 104, m, "3

125-*Dialog., 87, 88.

*Dialog., 126, 17, 102, no, 96, 115.

*Apolog. I 63; JWofeg,, 41, 134.

*Dialog., gy.


author remarks also that death is the result of sin, and that,

nevertheless, Jesus underwent it, not for His sake, but for the

sake of men;l hence it follows that the Saviour took on Him-

self the chastisement of sin, and thus did away both with sin

and death.

Below Jesus Christ, the Apologists place the Angels, created

before man, intelligent and free.2

According to Athenagoras

(Supplic., 10), they are God's ministers for the governmentof the world. In a well-known passage (Apolog. I, 6), St,

Justin mentions them between the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But, in addition to this passage being unique, such an order is

accounted for by the holy Doctor's remark that the nameof Angel has been often given to the Son, and by his purpose

merely to show that the Christians are not atheists. At anyrate, the text proves that the Angels were then an object of

veneration (c-efidfieQa teal irpoa-tcvvovfiev). Several of these

Angels did not remain in the right path: some sinned with the

daughters of men; others became guilty of faults of various

kinds.3 The devil, Satan, is the most perverse of all, the

special enemy of God, the author of Adam's fall.4

The Apologists distinguish in man two elements: the bodyand the soul. Nay, on the strength of the loth chapter of the

fragment De resurrectione, St. Justin has been accused of

distinguishing three elements; for there we read that the bodyis the house of the soul, and the soul, that of the spirit: ol/cos

ry&p TO crtofia tfrvxfi?) Trz/ev/iaro? Se ^vy^rj ol/co?. However,to judge him from his works taken as a whole, he seemsto have been a dichotomist.5 The irvevpa mentioned in the

previous text is not the rational soul, the z/ov?, but rather the

Spirit of God, the principle of supernatural life. Likewise

iDialog., 88.

*TATIAN, 7; ST. JUSTIN, Dialog., 88.

9 ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. H, 5; ATHENAG., Supplic., 24.* ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. I, 28; Dialog., 103; ATHENAG., SuppUc., 24.* Qe rewrrectione, 7, 8, 9; Apokg. I, 8; II, 10; Dialog., 105.


it has been pointed out that the Apologists in general, and

particularly St. Justin, greatly extol the freedom of man l andascribe very little to grace. This attitude is explained by the

demands of controversy and by the philosophy from which

they draw their inspiration. Besides, it is not correct to

affirm that the doctrine of grace has no place at all, not even

in St. Justin's works. On the contrary, the latter implies in

many places the necessity of the Divine help.2

Perhaps the weakest point of the Apologists' anthropologyis their teaching about the natural immortality of the soul.

St. Justin denies it explicitly: in his opinion, immortality is a

reward granted to the just, a chastisement inflicted on the

wicked.3 Tatian (13) entertains a similar view. Theophilusobserves that many consider the soul immortal because it is a

breath of life. Personally he thinks that man was created

neither immortal nor mortal: he was to be one or the other,

according as he would obey or disobey God. He disobeyedand has become mortal. But God mercifully offers him life,

which he can deserve by fulfilling His law,4

Theophilus also clearly teaches the doctrine of the original

fall.5 Moreover St. Justin tells us that sins in general axe

blotted out by baptism and penance.6

Baptism is an illumination ((fwrurfuk): it is given in the

name of the three Divine persons. Its effect is to regenerate

us (avayewqo-L?, TraTavyeweo-Ca) and to forgive us our sins.

Without it, there can be no salvation.7

1 ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. I, 28, 43, 61; Apolog. n, 14; Dialog., 88, 102, 141;

TATIAN, 7; THEOPHILUS, n, 27.2Apolog. 1, 10, 61, 65; Apolog. H, 10; Dialog., 47, 95, 119.

1Dialog., 5, 6.

* Ad Autolyc., H, 19, 27; cf. 24. The Epistle to Dio&etus (VII, 8) admits

the natural immortality of the souL5 Ad Autolyc., n, 17, 25; cf. ST. JUSTIN, Dialog., 85. We may notice that

THEOPHILUS, n, 25, holds that Adam was created a child (rfrrtos).

6Apolog. 1, 61; Dialog., 14; THEOPHILUS, n, 16.

7ST. JUSTIN, Apok$. I, 61, 66j Dialog., 44; THEOpBcaus, n, 16,


As regards the Eucharist and the divine service, the pre-

cious description of it left us by St, Justin in his first Apology

(65-67) is well known. Bread and wine mixed with water are

the matter of the Eucharist;1 the president (o Trpoeo-Tw} of the

assembly consecrates them with the very words of Jesus Christ.

Thus they become more than common bread and drink: theyare the flesh and blood of Jesus incarnate, as He Himself was

flesh and blood for our salvation. This Eucharist is distrib-

uted among all those who are present, and carried to the absent,

by the deacons. The celebration of the Mysteries takes place

on Sunday: it is accompanied by prayers, the thanksgiving of

the celebrant, the kiss of peace, the reading of the Apostles'

commentaries or of the Prophetical writings, the instruction

and exhortation of the president of the meeting, and finally

the offerings of the faithful for the poor and needy. In the

4ist chapter of his Dialogue, St. Justin recalls the words of

Malachias, i10-12

,and says expressly that the Eucharist offered

by the Christians is a sacrifice (Ova-Co)?

The eschatological doctrine crowns all this teaching. There

are, observes St. Justin, two advents of Jesus Christ foretold

by the Prophets, one in the lowliness of the Incarnation, the

other in glory, with the Angelic host.3 The resurrection of

the body will take place in the second advent. We know that

both St. Justin and Athenagoras wrote a treatise to establish

this dogma and refute the objections that were raised againstit. The other Apologists, Tatian (13), Theophilus (II, 14, 15),

Minucius Felix (34) mention likewise the same doctrine.

1 Harnack wrongly maintained that St. Justin did not admit wine as matterof the Eucharist (Brot und Wasser die eucharistischen Elemente bei Justin, in

the Texte und Unters., VIE, 2, Leipsic, 1891). Cf. SCHEIWILER, Die Elementeder Ettckaristie in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Mentz, 1903.

2 We may remark here, as belonging to the category of ecclesiastcial char-

isms, the power of casting out devils, which the Apologists testify was then

enjoyed at least by some Christians (ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. H, 6, 8; TATIAN, lojTBDEOPHILUS, n, 8).

*Apofy. I, 52; Dialog., 49, no.


This resurrection, St. Justin goes on to say, will be followed for

the elect by a reign of one thousand years upon earth. True,he adds, as it has been already pointed out,

1 that many ortho-

dox Christians do not hold this opinion: though, personally, he

holds it and unhesitatingly admits what was its logical conse-

quence, viz., the deferring of the beatific vision for the just.2

His view is this: at the moment of death, the souls of the just

and of the prophets used to fall under the dominion of the

infernal powers, and we must pray that our souls may not

meet with the same misfortune.3

St. Justin is the only one, among our authors, who speaks of

the millennium. But all teach the judgment and the future

rewards or punishments. The happiness of the elect will be

everlasting;4 so also the chastisements and the fire that will

torment the reprobate both in their bodies and in their souls.5

As to the material universe, it will perish in a universal con-

flagration.6

1 Cf. p. 201.2Dialog., 80, Si.

*Dialog., 105.

4 ST. JUSTIN, Didog., 45, 120.5 ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. 1, 8, 28; Didog., 45, 120, 130; TAHAN, $; MINUCXUS,

35; Epistle to Diognetus, X, 7.8 ST. JUSTIN, Apolog. II, 7; MINUOUS 34.

CHAPTER VI

THE DOCTRINAL STRUGGLE AGAINST HERESY ST. IREN^EUS l

AND MELITO

WHILE the Apologists were striving to turn aside the exter-

nal persecution and to set up Christianity opposite Philosophyand Paganism, other writers devoted themselves to refutingthe doctrinal errors that threatened the faith of the Church,

especially the most important of all those errors: Gnos-

ticism; hence they have been called Antignostic Fathers.

To this category St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus and Tertullian

belong. As these last two are to be studied elsewhere for

1 The edition quoted is that of D. MASSUET in P. G., VH. -H. ZEEGLER,

Irenaeus, der Bischop von Lyons, Berlin, 1871. R. A. Ltpsnrs, Die Zeit des Ire-

naeus von lyon, in the Historisck Zeitschrift, vol. XXVIU, 1872. FR. BQEHRTN-

GER, Irenaeus der Bischop von Lugdunum, 2nd edit., Stuttgard, 1873. A. Du-FOTracQ, Saint Irente, Paris, 1904. J. WERNER, Der Paulinismus des Irenaeus,

Text* und Untersuch., vol. VI, 2, Leipsic, 1889. FR. X. FUNK, Des Primat der

romischen Kircke, nachlgnatiusund Irenaeus, in the KirchengeschiM. Abhandl.

und Untersuck., vol. I, 1897. A. HARNACK, Das Zeugnis des Irenaetis uber das

Anseken der romiscken Kirche, in ft&Stizungsber. der K. preuss. Akad. der Wissen.

zit Berlin, 1873. J. CHAPMAN, Le ttmoignage de Saint Irenee enfaveur de la pri-maiM romaine in the Revue Benedictine, vol. XII, 1895. A. CAMERIJJNCK,Saint Irenle et le Canon du Nouveav Testament, Louvain, 1896. J. KUNZE, DieGotteslefoe des Irenaeus , Leipsac, 1891. L. DUNCKER, Des hi. Irenaeus Otristolo-

gie } Gottingen, 1843. J KOERBER, 5. Irenaeus de gratia sanctificante, Wurzfourg,

1865. G. MOLWITZ, De &vaK<f>a\cudMTeusin Irenaei fheologia potestate, Dresden,

1874. L. HoppENircJiXER, S> Irenaeus de Eucharistia, Bamberg, 1867. M.KIRCENER,Z>^Esckatologie des Irenaeus, in theStudienundritikm,vol.'XXXyi,1863. E. KLEBBA, Die Anthropokgie des M. Irenaeus, Munster in W., 1894;P. BATCBTOI, VEglise Naissante et le Catholicism, 4th ed., Paris, 1909, pp.

238-276.

THE STRUGGLE AGAINST HERESY 229

their activity was spent on other works also, 'we shall here

concentrate almost all our attention on the Bishop of Lyons,St. Irenaeus is an Asiatic. By his origin, he belongs to that

group of writers from Asia Minor, whose theological views pre-sent so much resemblance among themselves, that it has been

rightly called the Asiatic school: a school with which several

illustrious men were connected, though unfortunately mostof their works are lost: Melito, bishop of Sardis, Apollinarisof Hierapolis, Rhodon, Miltiades, Apollonius, the adversaryof Montamsm, and others. Of these authors, St. Irenaeus is the

best known, the only one of whom we possess a complete work.

Melito has left only fragments of works that deserve a better

fate, indeed, than that of oblivion.

The great treatise of St. Irenaeus Against Heresies or to

give its fulltitle,wEXe7;o<5' Kalavatpoir^ Trj^^revBcovv^ovYvaxreo^

composed between the years 176 and 199, is directed against

the Gnostics, more especially against the Valentinians: but it

states principles that reach far beyond this particular con-

troversy, so that it has ever been considered as a refutation

made beforehand of all heresies.

Immediately before the time when the work was composed,the canon of the New Testament had been determined for goodand in its exclusive sense, both at Rome and in Asia Minor,

Here and there, it is true, there was still some hesitation as to

this or that book St. Irenaeus himself mentions as inspired

writings the ShepJierd of Hennas and St. Clemenfs Epistle

(IV, 20, 2; IH, 3, 3)

*; but the principle was laid down and

the general limits were clearly marked out. The Bishop of

Lyons quotes or knows all the books of the actual canon, exceptthe Epistle to Philemon, which he does not quote, and the

second Epistle of St. Peter, with which perhaps he was not

1 However, his words do not prove tliat he regarded them as canonical; cf.

HAJRNACK, Lehrb.der D G., I, 339, note i; History of Itygma, vol. II, p. 55,

note 3.

230 THE ANTENICFNE THEOLOGY

acquainted. The Epistle to the Hebrews is the only one whose

authority he denied, though he knew and even quoted it.1

Now the Scriptures, says Irenaeus, are perfect "since theywere dictated by the Word of God and His Spirit" (II, 28, 2) ;

the four Gospels especially determine the faith and are the

norm of truth (III, i). Nevertheless, it is not to Scripture

that we must ultimately appeal against the Gnostics, first

of all because .they themselves have spread many apocry-

phal works which they pretend are inspired (I, 20, i) ;then

because, as they read the authentic Scriptures without anylove for truth, they are not convinced by them (III, n, 7) ;

finally, because they interpret them according to their own

fancy (II, 10, 2, 3; HI, 12, 7; 21, 3) and continually raise

difficulties against them (III, 2,1). In order more effectively to

oppose these irreclaimable quibblers, we must bring forward a

more simple rule of faith. This rule of faith is the symbol, the

icavfov T)j9 a\7j0eta$ aic\wrf> which each Christian received at

Baptism (I, 9, 4), and which cannot be changed, though it

can be more or less perfectly understood and explained (I,

10, 3)-

Where is that symbol to be found? In the Church. In

the Church there is found its formula, as well as the true

faith of which it is a summary, and the genuine and sound

preaching that explains it; in the Church that has received

all these things from the Apostles themselves, through the un-

interrupted series of her pastors; in the collection of the

mother Churches that can show the catalogue of their bishops

going back to the very origin of Christianity; in the teachingof the actual pastors to whom, through tradition, the truths

they preach have come down, and who, by means of the

charisma veritatis certum which they enjoy, preserve in its

1PHOXIUS, B&Z., cod. 232; cf. Adv. haeres., n, 30, 9; ETJSEB., H. E., V, 26.

Oa all this cf. A. LOISY, Histofre du Canon du Nouveau Testament, Paris, 1891,pp. 103, ff. TH. ZAHNJ Grundriss der GescJtickte des neutestammtttchen Kanons*Leipsic, 1901, 2nd edit, 1904,


integrity the deposit of those divine truths. Whosoever wishes

to learn with certainty anything about those truths must goto these pastors; from them he must ask the careful and exact

explanation of the Scriptures (EEI, 3, 1^4; IV, 26, 2, 5; IV, 33,

8; cf. IV, 32, i; IV, 26, 5). The whole of religious truth hasbeen entrusted to the Church by the Apostles. She has been

granted, to keep and spread it without falling into error, that

pledge of incorruptibility, the Holy Ghost: hence from her

and from the preaching of her bishops we must receive it, andis it useless to seek it^ elsewhere: "Tantae igitur ostensiones

cum sint, non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios veritatem

quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere, cum apostoli quasi in de-

positorium dives plenissime in earn contulerint omnia quaesunt veritatis, uti omnis quicumque velit sumat ex ea potumvitae" (III, 4, i). "Hoc enim Ecclesiae creditum est Dei

munus, quemadmodum ad inspirationem plasmationi, ad hoc

ut omnia membra percipientia vivificentur, et in eo disposita

est communicatio Christi, id est Spiritus sanctus, arrha incor-

ruptelae et confinnatio fidei nostrae, et scala ascensionis in

Deum . . . Ubi enim Ecclesia ibi et Spiritus Dei, et ubi

Spiritus Dei fllic Ecdesia et omnis gratia: Spiritus autem veri-

tas" (IH, 24, i; cf. V, 20, i).

The ultimate criterion of truth is, then, found in the teach-

ing of the Church, so that, to decide between heretics and

orthodox, it suffices to know what is the teaching of the par-ticular churches that make up the universal Church, and

more particularly of those which go back to the Apostles, bythe succession of their pastors (ill, 3, i). However, as it would

be too long to consult all of them, it will suffice to raum^what is the teaching of the Roman Church. For with her all

theothers must of necessity agree because of preeminent supe-

riority. In and through her, the faithful spread all over the

world have kept the tradition that has come down from the

Apostles: "Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volu-16


mine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximaeet antiquissimae et omnibus cognitae, a gloriosis duobus

apostolis Petro et Paulo Romae fundatae et constitutae Ec-

desiae, earn quam habet ab apostolis traditionem et annun-

tiatam hominibus fidem per successiones episcoporum per-

venientem usque ad nos indicantes, confundimus omnes eos

qui, quoquo modo, vel per sibi placentia, vel vanam gloriam,

vel per caecitatem et malam sententiain, praeterquam oportet

colligunt. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potiorem princi-

palitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est eos

qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab Ms qui sunt undiqueconservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio." (HI, 3, 2.)

Such is, briefly exposed, the celebrated testimony of St. Ire-

$aeus as to the doctrinal authority of the Church in general

and of the Roman Church in particular. That authority is

infallible, it is the property of the bishops and has for its abso-

lute condition that these bishops be connected with the Apos-tles by an uninterrupted succession: ultimately, it is nothingbut the work of the Spirit of truth living in the Church and

securing the integrity of her faith and the inerrancy of her

teachings.

We may now examine in detail the theology of the Bishop of

Lyons.We can truly know God only through the revelation He

makes us of Himself (IV, 6, 4). Now, He has revealed Him-self through His Word (IV, 6, 5; IV, 20, 4, 5). Yet, we cannot

express His greatness: whatever perfections we proclaim in

Him, He remains always ineffable: "Est autem et super haec et

propter haecineffabilis" (H, 3, 3, 4; cf. 8; I, 12, 2).

This supreme God is the Creator: the Gnostics wronglydistinguish Him from the Demiurge (H, i, i; III, 9-15, etc.).

He is the God both of the Old and of the New Covenant, the

only God, just and kind (IH, 9-15; IH, 25, 1-4; IV, 9-15).No doubt, there seem to be incongruities and disorder in


nature; in reality and taking all in all, there is harmony and

agreement (II, 25, 2).

However, in thison^ God St. Irenaeus counts .three terms:

the Father, the Son and the Spirit (I, 10, i; IV, 20, i, 3;

IV, 7, 4; H, 28, 6, ff.)- The passage (HI, 18, 3) brought for-

ward to prove that he confounds the Son with the Holy Ghost,as well as the name of Sapientia which he often gives to the

latter, cannot destroy the force of formal texts.

As regards the Word considered outside the Incarnation,

our author is more sober. Being a man of tradition and hav-

ing to struggle against adversaries who framed many systemsabout divine generations and operations ad infra, he confines

himself to mere doctrinal statements and abstains from anyspeculation. He prefers generally the name of Son to that of

Word.

The Son is God, truly God (HI, 6, i, 2). Like St Athana-

sius later on, St. Irenaeus sees in this divine character a con-

dition of the Redemption as he conceives it. This Son identical

with the Word (H, 28, 6; HE, 18, 2; cf. HI, 16, 6) is begotten

by the Father (IE, 28, 6), and this generation is eternal:

"Semper autem coeristens Films Patri" (IE, 30, 9). "Nbri

enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coexistens Deo sicut

proprium ejus Verbum" (II, 25, 3; cf. HI, 18, i). ThusIrenseus sets aside the doctrine of the temporal generation: he

accepts neither the projection ad extra (irpoftokrl) of the Gnos-

tics, nor the theories of the Apologists. The question: Howwas the Son born? he merely answers by saying that the

Father and the Son alone know it and that those men are lack-

ing in common sense who pretend to explain it and who liken

the uttering (prolation) of the Word to that of the humanword: "Non sunt compotes suL Quasi ipsi obstetricave-

rint!" (H, 28, 6; cf. DL 13, 8.)

The special function of the Son is not to create thoughHe is "the hand" of God, by which the latter creates (IV, 20,


i; V, 6, i)," but rather to reveal the Father. He is in the

Father, and the Father in Him (III, 6, 2: IV, 4, 2) : "Invisibile

etenim Filii Pater, visibile autem Patris Filius" (IV, 6, 6).

"Agnitio enim Patris est Filii manifestatio" (IV, 6, 3). It

is through the Son that the Father is known to us, and mani-

fests Himself first to the Angels and to the Heavenly Powers,from the beginning and before the creation of the world, and

then to men (II, 30, 9; IV, 6, 5, 7; IV, 7, 3; IV, 20, 7).

Does this mean that, just as the Son's existence depends,

according to the Apologists, on the creation, so also, accordingto St. Irenseus, it depends on the will of the Father to reveal

Himself ?l Our author certainlyneverthought of this question.

For him the Son is "the visible one" of the Father, as the

Father is"the invisible one" of the Son; and since the Father

has always been essentially visible and knowable, the Son has

always essentially existed: He is eternal like the Father. Onthe other hand, we find most assuredly in the Adversus haereses

some expressions savoring of subordinationism, as, for instance:

the Son has received sovereignty from His Father (HI, 6, i;

V, 18, 3); He is supported by the Father with creation, "for

there exists but one God Father above all" (V, 18, 2); but St.

Irenseus here only repeats the expressions of the Gospels and

of St, Paul, and any one who considers the Father as the

source of the Trinity can scarcely avoid a certain subordina-

tionism.

As to the Holy Ghost, it is worthy of note that the Bishop of

Lyons never calls Him and in this, he follows the example of

Scripture by the name of God (IV, Pref., 4; IV, i, i);

though he represents Him as eternal (aevvaov, V, 12, 2), ex-

isting near God "ante omnem constitutionenx," and producedby Him in the beginning of His ways, according to Proverbs,8* (IV, 20, 3).

' * HABKAOC, lefot. for D G., I, 539, 540; History cf Dogma, voL H, pp.

In regard to the Father, the Holy Ghost is His wisdom

(IV, 20, 3 and passim), His figuratio (IV, 7, 4):1 He and the

Son are the "two hands" by which God has created andformed man (IV, Pref., 4; IV, 20, i; V, 6, i). As to the

Church, the Holy Spirit is truth, grace, a token of immortal-

ity, a principle of union with God which Christ has communi-cated to her. The Divine Spirit is closely united with her and

gives to her Sacraments their virtue and efficacy (m, 17, 2;

III? 24,i; V,8, i; cf.IV,33, 7).

One of the aims of Gnosticism was to account for the pres-ence of evil in the world: but this it did only by altering the

faith. St. Irenseus finds the explanation in man's freedom andin the original fall. Man is naturally and necessarily neither

good nor bad; he is free, and therefore subject to reward or to

punishment (IV, 37, 1-3; IV, 3, 3; IV, 41, 2). On the other

hand, because of his very condition of creature, he could not be

perfect from the beginning: it was by obedience that he wasto come nearer to his Creator and gradually reach perfection

and immortality (IV, 38, i, 3). Unhappily, instead of this,

Adam and together with him all of us, who were included in

him, did not comply with the will of God. Tite Bishop of

Lyons is quite explicit: he draws a rigorous parallel between

Adam and Jesus Christ. In Adam all of us have disobeyed and

therefore have been punished; as we are born of him, we de-

serve to die: in Jesus Christ all of us have obeyed unto death,

and as we are born again in Him, we receive life in inheritance:

*Ez> /JV yap T$> 7rpdrr, pd) 'Trawjowne?avrov (TOV BGOV) rrjv lvro\r]V ev Sk rq> oevrfyip *A8i/t. anroKOr

r7}\\dyritJLV, irjrrifcoot fj&xpl ffavdrovyewpevoi'ty, 16, 3), "Per-

cussus est homo initio in Adam inoboediens (V> 34> 2) - -

ut quemadmodum per priorem generationem mortem haeredi-

tavimus, sic per generationem hanc (Gbristi) haereditareaaans

vitam" (V, i, 3; V, 12, 3; V, 14, i, 3)-

iPerha^tirefe^xeferstotte ClD.Mas-

suet's note on this passage.

God has then worked at man's salvation, but progressively,

and by giving him successively four covenants: from Adamto Noe, from Noe to Moses, from Moses to Jesus Christ, and

the New, through our Lord (III, u, 8; IV, 9, 3). Thoughthe first two included only natural precepts (naturalia legis),

whoever fulfilled them was justified (IV, 13, i; cf. IV, 15, i;

IV, 16, 3). The third was a law of servitude indeed, but of

servitude towards God, that led to Christ (IV, 15, i; IV, 12, 5).

The Gospel is the law of love and liberty (IV, 12, 2, 5; IV, 13,

2), a universal law that imposes more to believe and to do, but

brings also more joy and grace (IV, 9, 2; IV, n, 3; IV, 28, 2).

The Gospel was promulgated by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ

the redeemer St. Irenaeus affirms it over and over again is

not distinct from the Word-creator: He is the Incarnate Word(III, 16, 6; cf. Ill, 9, 3; 16, 7-9). Why did He become incar-

nate? Because we could reach immortality and incorrupti-

bility only on condition that He, who is by His very essence

immortality and incorruptibility, should unite Himself with our

nature, and by the very fact with all mankind whose memberswe are, and which He has, so to speak, summed up in Himself.

This is the doctrine of the avaKe$a\ate<n<s, dear to our author

(HI, 16, 6; III, 18, i, 7; III, 19, i). Hence the blood and

flesh of Jesus Christ were real (HI, 18, 6, 7; HI, 22, i, 2, etc.) ;

He was our brother, of our race, formed as we are (V, 14, 2, 3 ;

HI, 19, 3; m, 22, 2, 3, etc.); like ourselves, He had a humansoul (HI, 22, i, 2; V, i, i; V, 14, 3). Of course, His birth was

virginal the third Book, 22, i, 4-10, sets forth a formal

demonstration of this point; yet He passed through all the

ages and states of manhood: "per omnem venit aetatem"

(H, 22, 4; IH, 18, 7); He went through the course of humandestiny: He was tempted, He suffered, and experienced our

sorrows and passions (JH, 17, 4; HI, 18, i, 6; HI, 19, 2;

HE, 22, 2; V, 21, 2).

How this union of the Word and of the human nature was


wrought, St. Irenaeus does not explain: he calls it a commistio,a communio Dei el Tuminis (IV, 20, 4), an evaa-is rov \6yovTOV QeovTrpb? TO nXac-jut avrov (IV, 33, n; cf. HI, 16, 6; III,

19, i); he is conscious, though, both of the personal unity it

produces and of the duality of natures it preserves."Ipse

enim vere salvavit; ipse est Verbum Dei, ipse unigenitusa Patre Christus Jesus Dominus noster" (III, 16, 9; III, 19,

2, 3, etc.). "Ipsum Verbum Dei incarnatum suspensum est

super lignum" (V, 18, i; ITT, 9, 3). On the other hand, our

author remarks, the Saviour must of necessity have been reallyboth God and man, to mediate between Heaven and earth, to

conquer the devil and to conquer him justly (III, 18, 7).

Therefore He had a twofold birth: He was man to be tempted,Word to be glorified (III, 19, 2, 3; cf. HI, 16, 3): "Secundumid quod Verbum Dei homo erat . . . secundum hoc requies-cebat Spiritus Dei super eum . . . secundum autem quodDeus erat. non secundum gloriam judicabat, neque secundum

loquelain arguebat" (III, 9, 3),

Thus, being Word incarnate, Jesus summed up in Himself,as we have seen, all mankind and became for it a new Adam, a

new chief in whom it recovered every blessing it had lost in the

first Adam.."Quando incarnatus est et homo factus, longain

hominum expositionexn in se recapitulavit, in compendio nobis

salutem praestans, ut quod perdideraxaus in Adam, id est

secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse Dei, hoc in Christo

Jesu reciperemus" (HI, 18, i; HI, 21, 10; V, 23, 2). Jesus

stood for us taken all together and individually: hence, the

work of our redemption and salvation had already begun with

the Incarnation itself, which made us enter, tltrough Him, into

communion with the Word's immortality and incorruptibility

(HI, 9, i; HI, 18, 7). However, this work was not complete:

for though a redemption thus conceived would have certainly

repaired the consequences of sin, corruption and death, yet

it would not have atoned for the sin itself. Christ, our repr-

sentative, was thus to allay God's anger. As sin is above all a

disobedience, St. Irenaeus insists chiefly on the obedience of

Jesus Christ as the atoning act for sin: "Propitians quidem pronobis Patrem in quern peccaveramus, et nostram inoboedi-

entiam per suam oboedientiam consolatus" (V, 17, i; HI, 18,

6, 7). He speaks too of His sufferings and fast (V, 21, 2) and

especially of His agony and death on the cross. Theblppd of

Jesus Christ is the ransom with which He redeemed us."*"

Ver-Bum potens et homo verus sanguine suo rationabiliter redi-

mens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his qui in cap-tivitatem ductf sunt" (V, i, i; V, 2, i; cf. V, 16, 3). Hisdeath was a sacrifice for our redemption: *lva /cal 6 6eb$ evSo-

K</i<7<ri. . . TOP iScov povoyevf] teal atyarniTov vlbv 0v<riav irape-

ff%elv & \vrpoHrw ffperfyav (IV, 5, 4).-

The effect of this Redemption is the overthrow of Satan whois justly defeated, our reconciliation with God, the divine imagerestored in us, the divine Sonship and above all immortalityand incorruptible life received in and through Jesus Christ

(HI, 18, 7; HI, 19, i; HI, 23, i, 7; HI, 24, i; IV, 14, i; V,i, i

; V, 12, 6; V, 14, i, 3; V, 16, 2, 3). The means of sharingin these fruits is faith in Jesus Christ for by this faith alonethe Patriarchs themselves and the Just of the Old Law weresaved (IV, 2, 7; IV, 5,4; IX, 7, 2; IV, 13, i), a faith that

includes, not merely the assent of the mind, but also the ful-

filment of the precepts:"Credere autem ei est facere ejus vo-

hmtatem'; (IV, 6, 5; IV, 13, i; V, 10, i, 2).

Our spiritual regeneration is wrought through Baptism.This rite gives us a new birth and imparts to us the Holy Ghost(HI, 17, 2). St Irenaeus implies dearly that it is adminis-tered to little children (H, 22, 4).

Asto^the Eucharist, it is the body and blood of Jesus Christ,

into which the bread and wine are changed. This is undoubt-edly the TTwa.nfng of the various passages bearing on this sub-

ject, #fwai tafcea all together. In the fourth Book, 17, 5, he

records the words of the institution; then in chapter 18, 4, he

asks the Gnostics how, with their doctrine, they can be sure

that the bread over which thanksgiving is said is truly, the

Saviour's body, and the chalice, the chalice of His blood. Theflesh, he goes on to say, is fed with the body and blood of the

Lord: how then could it remain in corruption? how could it fail

to share in life? . . . "Just as the earthly bread, that receives

God's invocation, ceases to be a c6mmon bread, and becomesthe Eucharist made up of two elements, one earthly, the other,

heavenly (c/c Bvo irpaypdT&v <rwe<rrr)Kvlay eTnyetov re Kai

ovpavtov), so also our bodies, by partaking of the Eucharist,cease to be corruptible and possess the hope of the eternal

resurrection" (IV, 18, 5; cf. V, 2, 3). We must also mention

here what Irenseus relates (1, 13, 2) of the magic spells of Mar-cus who, after praying, made the wine of the chalice appear

red, in order that he might lead his followers to believe that

the Superior Power he invoked had distilled his blood into

the chalice: a proof that the Gnostics themselves admitted

the real presence.]

Besides, the Eucharist is not merely a Sacrament: it is also

a sacrifice: the Bishop of Lyons affirms it several times:

"Novi Testament! novain docuit (Christus) oblatioaem, quainEcdesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universe mundo offert Deo"

(IV, 17,5; IV, 18,1,4)-

The eschatology of St. Irenaeus remains to be exposed. This

is decidedly primitive in character, and is inspired driefly bythe Apocalypse. As we have already remarked, St Ireaseus

treats with anything but leniency those who think that imme-

diately after death the souls of the just are allowed to enjoythe sight of God, Personally he believes that, as the soul

of Jesus Christ had to wait in Limbo for the hour when His

body was to rise, so also the souls of Christians wait, in an in-

visible place* far the hour when they rise, and, being dad

again with that bodies, are brought into the Lord's presence


(V, 31, 2). This hour will be preceded by the apparition

and defeat of Antichrist, and is to come after the world has

lasted for six thousand years (V, 28, 3). St. Irenaeus proves

in twenty places, against the Gnostics, the resurrection of the

body. He proves it by the very resurrection of Jesus Christ

(V, 31, 2); by the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in us (V, 13, 4);

by the Eucharist (V, 2, 3; IV, 18, 5). There will be a first

resurrection for the Just, who are to reign with Jesus Christ

during a thousand years (V, 32-35). Then the universal

resurrection, each one reappearing in his own flesh (H, 33,

55 II, 34, i), and the judgment (V, 32, i) shall take place.

The punishment of the wicked shall be everlasting (IV, 28, 2;

IV, 40, i, 2; V, 28, i), as well as the reward of the Just (IV,

28, 2; V, 36, i, 2) in the sight and possession of God (IV, 31,

2; IV, 35, i); all these, however, will not equally share in

that reward: for there are various mansions in the Father's

house, and while some will be admitted into Heaven,others will dwell in Paradise, others finally, in the renewed

Jerusalem (V, 36, 2). Death shall be destroyed, and the

Son, who has received from the Father dominion over all

things, submitting Himself to Him, God shall be all in all

As far as we can judge from the fragments of the work of

Melito of Sardis l that have been preserved, his doctrine wassimilar to that of St. Irenaeus. Jesus Christ is truly God, Godeternal: fleo? a\r}0^ 7rpoaid>vt,o$ irjrdp%&v (fragm. VI, XV);He is man also, a perfect man, with a body and a soul like ours

(fragm. VI; cf. EUSEBITJS, H. ., V, 28, 5). Hence there are

in Him two natures; if the sixth fragment is authentic, whichthere is no decisive reason to doubt, St. Melito was the

,

* These fragments are gathered in OTTO, Corpus Apokgetarum, IX. See (XTHOMAS, U&to von Sardes, Osnabriick, 1893.

first to declare expressly this doctrine: 0eo? yap <ov 6fju>v re xal

av0p&Tro? reXeio? 6 avrbs (Xpfcoro?) TO? Svo avrov oixrias ema--

raxraro TIJUV. Nevertheless, there is in TTfm only one person:this is constantly implied by the use our author makes of the

communicatio idiomatum (fragm. VII, XEE, XIV, XVI).Finally, and this is a feature quite characteristic, the Bishopof Sardis, like St. Irenseus, knows the doctrine of the sum-

ming up or recapitulation of mankind in Jesus Christ (fragm.

xin).We may conclude this chapter by remarking that St. Ire-

nseus closes what may be called a first period of the History of

Dogma. With him, comes to an end that theology, which

consists in little more than writing down the primitive data

from Scripture or Tradition; only occasionally does it gofurther than this, and then with diffidence. He himself is its

most faithful and complete representative. Preeminently a

man, of tradition, he abstains on purpose from speculatingand from adding anything to what he believes to be the faith.

Besides, this faith appears already in his works, with all its

affirmations or at least with all the germs which afterwards

will grow and develop. In the West, that development will

take place calmly and gradually, and theology will lose nothingof that character of a preeminently traditional science, with

which St. Irenaeus had stamped it. Though it does not owe to

In'm, its formulas and technical language these will be bor-

rowed from Tertullian, it does owe to him the substance of

its teaching, and which is more important in one waythat instinctive liking for the path of authority, in which

it is to carry on its researches and make its progress. In the

East, that development will be more rapid and somewhat

sudden. A man appears, who, starling also from the data of

tradition, shatters their framework into pieces and,a rivalof the

Gnostics, strives single-handed to compose a scientific and

orthodox explanation of Christianity.^A grand work indeed,


though, premature, the influence of which is destined to be

widespread; many of its elements, however, will be given upone day, since they are the rough sketches of a mind more com-

prehensive than safe, and the dilapidated parts of an edifice

built with too much haste.

CHAPTER VII

THE PMNCIPAL EARLY THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS IN THE EAST

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA AND ORIGEN

i. Clement of Alexandria.1

IT is in the Qmrch of Alexandria that was made, at the end

of the second and at the beginning of the third century, that

1 Edition POTTER, dementis Alexandrini opera quae exstant omnia, Oxford,

1715, in P. G,, VIII, DC Vol. VI3I contains the Cohortatio, the Padagogus andthe first four Stromata; Vol. DC, the other works. As the divisions are generally

long, I always mention the column of the Greek Patrology. Consult also, for the

Adwnbrationes, ZAHN, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestametttlichen Kanons,

Supplementum Clementinum, Erlangen, 1884. Works: J. KAYE, Some Account

of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, London, 1835; 2^ *$&-,

1890. C. BIGG, Th& Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, 1886. E. BE

FAYE, Clement d'Alexandrie, Paris, 1898. H. KUTTJEB., Das Christentum des

Klemens von Alexandria, in the Schweizeriscfa tkeolog. ZeUsdhrift, XVI, 1899.P. ZEEGERT, Zwei Alhandlungen tiber T. Plan. Klemens Alexandrine, Heidel-

berg, 1804. A. AAIX, Der Logos, Geschichte seiner Rntwicklvng . . . n, Leip-

sic, 1899. G. TH. HIIXEN, dementis Alexandrini de SS. Eucharistia docfrina,

Warendorp, 1861. W. DE Loss LOVE, Clement of Alexandria, not an after-death

Probationist or Universattst, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1888. J. WINTER,Die Ethik des Klemens von Alexandrien, Leipsic, 1882. G. ANBICH, Klemens und

Origenes als Begrunder der Lehre wn Fegfeuer, Tiibingen, 1002. K. E&KESn,Die Etkik des T. Flamus Klemens von Alexandrien, Paderborn, 1900. MABK-

GRAP, Klemens von Alexandrien als askefisscker Schrifsfetter, IQ the Zevtsckr. /,

Kirchengesch., XXII, 1901. W. CAPTTAINE, Die Moral des Clemens von Alexan-

drien, Paderborn, 1903. W. WAGNER, Der Christ und die Wett nock Clemens von

Alexandrien, Gottingen, 1903. H. EICKHOFP, Das Neue Testament des Klemens

Alexandrinus, Schleswick, 1890. P. DATJSCH, Das ne&testamenfKche Sckrift-

kanon und Klemens von Alexandrien, Friburg in Brisgau, z8o4- H. ELurrER,Klemens Alexandrinus und das Neue Testament, Giessen, 1897; P. BAXIPPOL,

UEgUse Naissante et le CathoUcisme, Pans, 1909, K>. 295-316.


effort of which, we have just spoken and which truly gave rise to

Theology. The list of the bishops of that Church is all that we

know of her, until that time. But suddenly, about the year

1 80, her catechetical school begins to shine with great lustre

and becomes the cradle of most interesting and fruitful works.

The first illustrious name of that school is the name of

Pantenus, who left after himself only a highly revered memory.1

He was succeeded by Clement, at first his disciple, who for

some twelve years, from the year 190 to the year 202-203,

was, either alone or with his master, the leader of the Didas-

caleion.

The three great treatises that still remain of Clement: the

Exhortation to the Greeks, the Pedagogue, and the Stromata are,

as it were, three parts of a work that formed a whole, thoughit has remained unfinished. They constitute, with the Quisdives salvetur and what remains of the Hypotyposes (Sketches)

chiefly in the Adumbrationes in epistulas canonicas, the chief

source where the author's theology is to be studied.

To understand this theology, one must not forget that Clem-

ent is both a strong Christian and a stanch philosopher. Theformer feature has not always been sufficiently noticed. Not

only Clement's piety sometimes overflows in a way truly ad-

mirable;2 he also acknowledges the authority of the An-

cients and of the Church's tradition and protests that he in-

tends to abide by it: "He ceases," he says, "to be a man of

God and faithful to the Lord, who discards with contemptthe ecclesiastical tradition and yields to the opinion of humanheresies." 3 On the other hand, his taste, nay, his enthusi-

asm for Philosophy, is well known. However we may ob-

1EUSEB., E. R, V, x.

2 For instance, in Cohort., XI, XH.*Stromata, VH, 16, col. 532. Cf. also Strom., I, i, col. 700, 701. HAKNACK,

Gesch. der altchristUch. Litter., Die Ueberlieferung, pp. 291, ff., gives the list ofthe quotations Clement makes of the words of the irperffoepoi.

EARLY SYSTEMS IN THE EAST 245

serve that by Philosophy, he does not mean the system of

this or that school, but in general the whole collection of the

doctrines that teach righteousness and piety, of which everyschool supplies its share.1 Clement is an Eclectic. Plato and

Pythagoras are his favorite masters, and after them, Zeno andAristotle. He excludes only Epicurus and the Sophists.

2 That

Philosophy, he thinks, played in the past a providential part:

"It led the Greeks to Christ as the Law led the Hebrews to

Him." It was given to them "as a covenant to be used bythem, which was to be for them as a step in order to reach the

Philosophy according to Christ." 3 Not indeed that it had an

origin as immediately divine as revelation itself: it does not

come from God essentially, directly (icarh Trpoytyov/jievov) ,but

only indirectlyand byway of consequence (fcara 7ra/cokovdrjfjt.a),

either because most of it was drawn from those books of the

Old Testament which were known to the Heathen, or because

reason which originates Philosophy and brings it into shape is

a gift of God.4 Anyhow, its actual part is to be the helpmateof faith in the study the latter makes of its own deep mys-teries: it must aid tins faith to build itself into gnosis. True,the doctrines of Philosophy add nothing to the light of Chris-

tian truths; but its method and its dialectics train the mindand guide it in its seeking after truth, in its striving after

good, in its apostolic endeavors to spread good and truth.5

While thus defining the actual r61e of Philosophy, Clement

described his own undertaking: viz., by means of Philosophy,to search more and more deeply into faith, to transform the

latter into a science, Revelation into a theology. However,

Strom., I; 7, col. 732.

Strom., 1, 8, col. 737; Strom., I, i, col, 688; V, 14, col. 173; VL 8, col. 289.

Strom., I, 5, col. 717; VI, 8, col. 288, 289; VI, 5, col. 261; VI, 17, col. 392.

Strom., I, 5, col. 717; V, 14; VI, 2.

Cohort., XI, coL 229; XII, col. 237, ff.; Strom., I, 20, col. 816; V, 14, coL

205; VI, 17, col. 380, 381; I, 6, col. 728; VI, 17, col. 385; I, 9, coL 740; I,

20, col. 813, foil


while the Pseudo-Gnostics as lie calls them had, under

the pretext of reaching the very same end, substituted for

faith their own fancies, Clement insisted on that faith re-

maining the foundation (0e^e'7uo?) of the whole building.

He did not allow of any departure from the principles it laid

down, from the facts it had ascertained, nor even of any in-

vestigation (tyrrja-is) bearing on some truths that belonged ex-

clusively to its domain. These conditions being fulfilled, the

science of Revelation, he thought, would not be a human

science, independent in character, but a divine science, con-

trolled by the Church.1

These views of Clement of Alexandria are quite correct, and

all that we can regret in this regard is that, sometimes, he him-

self did not follow them strictly. He shows already a ten-

dency to deviate from them by the misuse he makes of the

allegorical method in the interpretation of Holy Writ. True,

the latter is for him the safe path of the true Religion; he

acknowledges unhesitatingly its inspiration (0eoWevo-Tot),2

and includes in his canon almost the same books as we do;3

but in exegesis he adopts Philo's principles. He applies themwith unhesitating boldness to the Old Testament, whose facts,

in his hands, vanish away into mere symbols: as to the NewTestament, he is usually more reserved.4 We -find in the sixth

book of StromcUa (15 and 16, col 356, ff.) his views on the

nature and necessity of allegory in Holy Scripture.

1Strom., n, 2, col. 940; V, i, col. 12-13; VIE, 10, coL 477; Paed., I, 6,

col. 280, foil.

2Cohort., VH, col. 188, 189; VKt, col. 192, 193; Strom., I, 21, col. 853;

VH, 16; Paed., I, 6, col. 308.3 He knows all the boots of the NewTestament, except the 2nd Epistle of St.

Peter, the 3rd of St. John, and perhaps too that of St. James,which, however, heseems to quote (Strom., VI, 18, col. 397). As to the Apocrypha and ancient

writings which he cites as authorities or even as Ijypatfr/j (v. g., the Didache,Strom., I, 20, col. 817), it is difficult to state the exact value he sets upon them.Probably his canon was not well determined.

,

4See, however, his explanation of I Cor., 3*, in Paed., I, 6, col. 292.


Scripture, the teaching of the Church and of the Ancients,

Philosophy: these are, according to Clement, the three ele-

mentary factors of Theology. What doctrine did he frame

with their help?It is a doctrine in which the two elements, rational and

divine, have left simultaneously their respective traces, and

which, often, instead of combining, merely places side by side

what is drawn from these two sources.

The God of Clement is indeed the God of Christians, a Godreal and concrete, eminently holy and kind, who watches

over men and wills their salvation;l but He is also a God con-

ceived in the Platonic fashion and so transcendent that Heborders on abstraction: for He is above the whole world and all

causes, above thought itself, above the One and the Monad.2

In this one God, Clement counts three terms. Some have

doubted that he set between them a personal distinction: how-

ever, that he did is beyond question : Clement finds the Trinityeven in Plato.3

The second term of this Trinity is the Logos. According to

Photius (BibL, cod. 109), Clement held two beings of this

name: one, Logos of the Father; another, who is the SonHimself: neither of whom, however, strictly speaking, be-

came incarnate, as the incarnation befits only a Swapis -w rov

Beov olov aTToopoia rov \oyov avrov, a kind of third logos ema-

nating from the first. But probably Photius made a mistake.

Clement distinguished only between the intelligence of God,which is at once immanent and the Father's attribute, and the

personal Logos who is the Son.

1Strom., n, 2, col. 936; V, 10, col. 101; VIE, 12, col. 496-497; V, iy coL 16;

Vt, 17, col. 388, ff.; Cohort., X; Paed., I, 9, col. 353, 356; H, 10, col. 517.2Paed., I, 8, col. 336; Strom., V, 10, col. 100; V, n, coL 108, 109; V, 12,

col. 121, 124; VII, i, col. 404.8Paed., I, 2, 6, cot 280, 300; IH, 12, col. 680, 681; Strom., V, 14, col. 156;

VI, 7, col. 280; Quis dives $alwtotrt 34, coL 640*

17

As to the latter, our author affirms directly His eternal gen-

eration: this is the characteristic teaching of the Alexandrian

school in opposition to the Apologists. This generation not

only preceded creation: it had no beginning, no starting-point

(<b/a/>%o<?), for the Father is Father only on condition that Hehas a Son: 1 "Cum dicit (Joannes, I Joan., i

1): Quod erat ab

initio, generationem tangit sine frincipio filii cum fatre simul

exstantis" *True, the Word came forward (irpoeXfi&v) at the

moment of creation and as its immediate author: but this

fact does not imply two states in Him; He has not been

subject to the 7r/>o$oX^.3

Born of the Father from all eternity, the Logos is like Him,He is truly God as the Father is: 6 <f>avpd>ra,To$ Svray; debs

o rS> &OTTOT77 T&V o\o>v efi(TG>0e&:4

always present in all

places and nowhere limited, He is all intelligence, Hesees, hears, knows and governs all.

5 His attributes are

the same as the Father's: the Father is in the Son andvice versa: to both, prayers are offered up: they are one

and the same God.6 Clement pushes so far the affirmation

of their unity that he seems sometimes very near being a

Modalist. 7

And yet some have thought that in his works there are traces

of subordinationism: for he not only applies to the Son the

appellations Philo gives to the Word : but he also declares that

the Father is Trpecrfivrepos h yev&ei, that the Son's nature

(<iW) is the nearest to Him who alone is all powerful, that

the Son can be demonstrated and known, while the Father

Strom., VH, 2, col. 409, 412; V, i, coL 9.

Adumbrationes, P. G., IX, coL 734; ZAHN, p. 87.

Strom., V, 3, coL 33; VII, 2, col. 408.

Cohort., X, col. 228.

Strom., "VH, 2, col. 408.TE* 7fy 4P* 6 6e6s (Paed., I, 8, col. 325); Paed., I, 7, col 312; m, 12,

coL 681; Strom., V, 6, col. 65; VII, 12, col. 500, 501.7Paed., I, 8, col. 333, 336.


can be neither known nor demonstrated.1Nay, if Photius 2

is to be believed, Clement looked upon the Son as a creature;

and it must be said that the Alexandrian doctor has, on this

subject, expressions somewhat perplexing.3

These, however,can be explained and do not destroy the impression that results

from his doctrine taken as a whole. Even, some authors are

unwilling to believe that he was truly subordinationist.

Concerning the Holy Ghost, our author says nothing special,

nothing that is not already found in Holy Writ.4 However,the reader's attention may be drawn to the passage where hecalls the Son and the Holy Spirit "primitivae virtutes ac primocreatae, immobiles existentes secundum substantiam." 5

As we have seen, the Word is the immediate agent of crea-

tion. Clement understands this creation in the strict sense:

neither spirit nor matter are eternal: 6furthermore, he does

not seem to have taught, as Origen did later on, the pre-existence of souls.

7 On the other hand, he is trichotomist.

Man possesses two souls: one, carnal and sensitive (crapfcucbv

irvevpa), the other, intelligent and ruling (\oyurn/cbv- /cal

jyepovucbv), that is not begotten with the body,8 and is en-

dowed with freedom, for God intends us to work out, by our-

selves, our salvation: ^/-tfi? Se e rjn&v avr&v ftovXerai, aw&crOai.9

Neither is the body essentially evil, nor the soul, essentially

1Strom., VII, i, col. 404; VII, 2, col. 408; IV, 25, col. 1365.

2 Codex log. Rufinus of Aquileia also points out in Clement's work passagesthat have the same meaning, though he supposes they were interpolated (Epi-

logus in Apologetic. S. PampMti, edit, of Origen by Lommatzsch, XXV, 387).*Strom., V, 14, col. 132; VI, 7, col. 278; AdumbroMones, col. 735, 736.

4Cohort., Vm, col. 188, 189; Strom., IV, 26, col. 1373; VH, 2, 001413;

VH, 14, col. 351, foil.

5Adumbrationes, col. 735, 736.

8Strom., V, 14, col. 136, 140.

7Strom., in, 13, col. 1193; IV, 26, col. 1373 -1377. See, however, Quis

dives sakefar, 33, col. 273; VI, 16, coL 360.8Strom., VI, 6, col. 273 ; VI, 16, coL 360.

9Strom., VI, 12, coL 3175 VI, 16, coL 360; IV, 21, col. 1341; II, 15, col. 1000;

VII, 7, col. 468,


good: sin is our own deed, a deed, though, which is natural

and common to all of us: the Logos alone is without sin.1

Clement nowhere speaks clearly of original sin. True, he

knows the disobedience of our fust parents and thinks that, as

they were created in a state of infancy, their fault consisted in

uniting in wedlock, before the time appointed to them byGod; true, he admits also that by his sin Adam gave to menan example which they are not slow to follow; but he seems

to deny the imputation that might be made to them of that

sin, by affirming that only the acts of our choice (icarh TrpoaC-

pea-tv) can be imputed to us.2

It was to free us from sin that the Word became incarnate.3

Although our author, engrossed with the knowledge of God

brought by Jesus Christ, sees in the latter's being chiefly its

divine and invisible element, yet he is not ignorant of, nor does

he disregard His humanity, as well as the part it played in the

work of salvation.

The Word, then, became incarnate, begot Himself so to

speak, in His incarnation, was born of David's race, of a

Virgin: the Word incarnate is Jesus Christ: ovros yovv 6 \dyos6 X/M0T&.

4

Photius has charged Clement with Docetism.6 The accu-

sation is only partly deserved. On one hand, Clement sets

aside Docetism strictly so called; he admits in Jesus Christ a

real body, a material blood, a passible manhood;6 on the other

1Strom., H, 15, col. 1000, 1004; IV, 26, col. 1373, 1377; Paed., HI, 12, col.

672; cf. Cohort., XI, col. 228.*Strom., II, 15, col. 1004; HI, 17, col. 1205; DJ, 14, coL 1193, 1196; Co-

hort., XI, col. 228; Adumbr* in epist. Jvdae, col. 733.*

8Cohort., XI, col. 228, 229.

*Cohort., I, col. 60, 61; XI, col. 228, 229; Strom., V, 3, col. 33; V, 14, col.

161; Paed., I, 6, col. 300; HI, i, col. 556.5BibUoth., cod. 109.

*Strom., HI, 17, col. 1205, 1208; VI, 9, col. 292; VII, 17, col. 553; V, 6,

col 5&; Paed.t I, 2, col. 252; I, 6, col. 301; II, 2, col, 409; HI, i, col 557;

Qui$_diM$ sahetvr, 37, col, 641,


hand, he thinks that His body was free from the common andnatural necessities of eating and drinking, and His soul, fromthe motions of passions (wrradfy TTJV ^vj^y), from joy and sad-

ness. He even records, without any disapproval, a certain

tradition that represented the Saviour's flesh as impalpableand offering no resistance to the sense of touch.1

On the whole, our author acknowledges in Jesus Christ twonatures: the one Logos is at the same time God and man:o Xo^os- o IAOVOS ap^co 0eo'? re teal avBp&Tros: He is the Man-God (6 avOp&TTos #609), who is for us a source of blessings,

both as God and as man.2 On the other hand, Clement regardsHim undoubtedly as one only person whose personality re-

sides in the Word. Instances of the communication of idioms

occur frequently in his works, and he supposes that the hypo-static union persevered even during the triduum mortis: "TheWord living and buried with the Christ is exalted with God." a

As to the work of Jesus Christ, it is for Clement chiefly a work

of revelation and teaching. Jesus. Christ is our doctor and

master, our true pedagogue.4 Besides it is also a work of re-

demption and reconciliation. Jesus Christ gave up His soul

for each one of us: He is our ransom (\vrpov eavrbv eircSt-

Sov?); He is propitiation for our sins (jXair/ufc), an immo-

lated victim (6\o/cdp7ra>iiai ffvfid) whose blood redeems us and

reconciles us to God.5

Jesus calls all of us to the salvation that He has brought; it

depends upon us to answer this call or not. 6 We answer it first

1Strom., VI, g, col. 292; cf. m, 17, coL 1161, 1164; Paed., I, 2, col. 252;

Adwmbr. m I Joan., i1,col. 735.

*Cohort., I, col. 61; Paed., HI, i, col, 557; 1, 3, col. 257; cf. I, 2, col. 252.

8Cohort., II, col. 97; Paed., I, 5, col. 277, 280; I, 6, col. 301; Cohort., X,

col. 224-*Cohort., XI, col. 229, 232- XH, col. 240; Paed., I, 6, col. 280; Strom., VII,

10, col. 480.5Quis dives salvetw, 37; Paed., Ill, 12, coL 677; Strom., V, n, col. 108;

Cohort., X, col. 228.

6Strom., n, 6, coL 960, 961,

of all by faith. What, then, is faith? Clement speaks of it

often, but nowhere defines it with precision. He looks uponit as being, in general, a kind appreciation and an anticipated

acceptance of that which will become the object of an intelli-

gent comprehension. Then, applying this notion to religious

truths, he derives from it the idea of faith properly so called.1

From faith, he goes on to say, hope, that is, the waiting for the

possession of the good, arises as well as fear and penance, that

lead us to charity and science (byAmi /cal <yv&<n$)? Thus un-

derstood, faith is uryiR e& crwrrjptav fcal Svva/u$ els Kpty al&viov,

but it ought not to be separated from the fulfilment of the

divine precepts; and though it suffices for salvation, yet it is

but the beginning of the knowledge of God and of Christian

perfection. Gnosis stands above.3

Here we touch one of the most important points of Clement's

doctrine. There is no doubt that he divided Christians into

two categories: those who content themselves with the com-

mon faith (KOWT) Tr^m?), and those who rise to Gnosis: thoughhe expressly condemned the error that might regard this

division as lite result of a diversity of nature among men.4 Far

from excluding each other, these two states are intimatelyconnected. Gnosis supposes faith, and faith contains Gnosis in

germ, since it is the latter's foundation, and since the life of

charity the life of the true Gnostic is nothing else than

the development of the life of faith the life of one who merelybelieves.5

What, then, should we exactly understand by a Christian

Gnostic? Clement has described him in several places; in the

seventh Stroma (10-14) especially, he has left us an ideal pic-

1Strom., n, 6, col. 964; II, 12, col. 992; IE, 2, col. 940.

2Strom., II, 6, col. 961, 965.

*Strom., H, 6, col. 961; n, 12, col. 992; V, i, col. 21; VI, 14, col. 329;

Paed. t I, 6, col. 285.4Paed., I, 6, col. 288, 293.

BPaed., I, 6, col. 280, foil.


ture, in which it is easy to notice two principal features. First

of all, the Gnostic has a knowledge and, as it were, an intuitive

perception of the truths that faith prompts us to believe, with-

out revealing to us their contents: he has the understanding of

God and of things divine in general, of man and his nature, of

virtue, of the supreme good, of the universe and its origin:

the "great mysteries," of which the smaller ones are a mere

preparation, are revealed to him.1 Then the Gnostic leads a

perfect life, characterized by the practice of two virtues: one

Stoic, theother Christian. Theformer is insensibility (aTrdffeia) :

the Gnostic has uprooted from his soul every passion and

desire, all the sensible part of his nature: hence he has noneed of the inferior virtues necessary for the struggle: no event

can shake him, nor can he be readied by any emotion: he is

the ideal philosopher of the Porch.2 The latter virtue is char-

ity (aydirrj), which is, as it were, the principle directing and

rendering the whole life of the Gnostic fruitful. Charity

prompts him to suffer for the Church and work at the conver-

sion of souls, to love his enemies, forgive insults and endure

martyrdom. The Gnostic prays always and everywhere, andhis prayer is perfect, in as much as it is always submissive to

the will of God.3

As it is easy to see, in his description of faith and Gnosis,

Clement simply marked out the two degrees of Christian life,

one of the common life, the other, of perfection. His originality

consisted in introducing, on the one hand, into the idea of per-

fection, the intellectual and Platonic element of knowledge;on the other, the practice of the Stoic virtue of apathy, into its

moral element. In this we recognize the two influences, philo-

sophic and Christian, which told on his mind and reechoed, as

it were, in his teaching.

1Strom., V, it, coL 108; VI, 8, coL 289; VI, 10, coL 300; VIE, 3, col. 421.

2Strom., VI, 9, col 292, foil.

8Strom., I, 2, col. 709; IV, 4, col. 1225, 1228; IV, 9, col. 1284, 1285; YD,

I, col. 405; Vn, 7, coL 449, 4$6; VH, 9, col. 477; VH, 12, coL 496, 501.

Thus attracted towards the problems of the inner life, both

intellectual and moral, of the Christian, Clement studied com-

paratively Ettle the external side of the Church, her rites and

hierarchical organization. However, he did not ignore them

altogether. For hfrn the Church is the city of the Logos, the

temple built by God Himself. To her, at the same time virgin

and mother, who will feed us with the Logos, we must go, since

she is the assembly of those whom God intends to save.1 TheGnostic is set forth as the true priest and deacon of God: this

dignity he has not received from the hands of men, nor does he

sit on the president's chair, though, as a just man, he has his

place in the ranks of the presbyterium? Nay, the Quis dives

salvetur supplies us with a classical text in behalf of St. Peter's

primacy: this Apostle is "the Elect, the Chosen one, the

first of the disciples (6 wpfiro? TCOZ/ fjLaOrjr&v) ,for whom alone,

together with Himself the Saviour paid the tribute." 3

Baptism is a new birth (axwyeW^cw) ,that makes us God's

children, perfect, immortal; an illumination (<^c5n<r/ia), a bath

(Xovr/>oV) that washes away our sins and the punishments due

to them.4

The Eucharist accompanies Baptism. Clement often al-

ludes to it, though he seldom speaks of it in very clear terms.

Always inclined to seek beyond the divine reality it contains,for the more intimate effects of which it is thesymbol and agent,he obscures, in his speculations, statements which he hadfirst made most explicitly. This is the case with the following

passage: "The Word is all to the little child, father, mother,tutor and nurse: Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood.

This is the suitable food the Lord gives us; He offers us Hisflesh and pours forth His blood unto us; and henceforth noth-

1Strom., IV, 20, col. 1381; VH, 5, col. 437; P0e&, I, 6, col. 281, 300; m,

13, col 677.*Strom*, VJ, 13, col 328.

*Quit iS^safoeMr, 21, col. 625.

46, qoi 280, 281; Sfr&m^ EC, 13, col. 99$,

EARLY SYSTEMS EST THE EAST 255

ing is wanting for the children's growth. wonderful mys-tery! He commands us to cast off our carnal corruption of

old, as a disease that afflicted us in the past, to share in the

new regimen of Christ, and by receiving Him, if possible, to

place Him in ourselves and to hide the Saviour in our breast,

that He may control the affections of our flesh. But perhaps

you are unwilling to understand it thus: [perhaps you prefer

to understand it] in a more common way. Hear also this."

Then our author goes on to explain how, through Jesus Christ

and by faith in Him, we enter into communion with the

Father who sets Him before His own nurslings as milk and

food.1

Clement of Alexandria seems to understand Penance, some-

what like Hennas. After recording the words of the Shepherdon the only penance that can be done after Baptism, he en-

deavors to show it ought to suffi.ce, and what a disorder it

would be to repeat it often.2 Of course, the official penance is

the only one that is thus alluded to; for the chastisements with

which God visits the Christian that falls into sin have for their

purpose, he observes, to bring about his amendment.8 Wemay remark also that the Church of Alexandria does not seein

to have been, in Clement's time, as exacting as regards the

reconciliation of murderers as the Church of Rome was at

about the same time. This is inferred from the story of the

young man converted by St. John, related by our author in the

Quis dives saketur, 42.

Did Clement ever compose the writing Hepl avacrrdo-e&s

which he announced in his Pedagogue (I, 6, col. 305; H, 10,

col. 521)? We do not know. This much, though, is beyond

question: in those works of his that still remain, he teaches

or implies the resurrection of the body.4 As to the millen-

1Paed.y 1, 6, col. 301; cf. Paed., H, 2, col. 409, 412; Excerpta e Tkeodoto, 13.

2Strom., H, 13, col. 993, 996.

8Strom,, IV, 24, col. 1363.

rfv I, 6, col. 284; I? 4, col, 26p,

256 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGYt

nium, he is completely silent. However, he admits that, after

death, the souls of sinners will be sanctified (wyiafew) by an

intelligent fire, and that the wicked will be likewise punished

by fire.1 Is their chastisement to last forever? Clement does

not think so: those tortures of which he speaks in the seventh

Stroma, 2 (coL 216), and which follow the final judgment bringthe guilty to repentance. This same idea occurs again in the

12th chapter (col. 506); besides, in the i6th chapter (coL 541)the author lays down the principle that God does not punish,but only corrects, that is, that any punishment on His part is

remedial.2 When we remember that later on Origen started

from the very same principle to infer the apocatastasis, we are

probably right in believing that Clement understood this

principle in the same way as his illustrious successor.

Anyhow, he adds that, for the elect, they shall be received

into one of the three dwelling-places signified by the numbers

thirty, sixty, a hundred, of the parable of the seed (Matt.,

i38).

3 The Gnostic alone is allowed to enjoy what the eye has

not seen, nor the ear heard, what has not entered into the

heart of man to conceive. He will enter the house of God,there to contemplate Him in a light unchangeable and eternal.4

2. Origen.5

Of all the theologians of the East, Origen is undoubtedly the

greatest and the one whose influence has been the deepest. A1Strom., VII, 6, col. 449; V, 14, col. 133.

3 Cf. Strom., VI, 14, col. 329, 332.8Strom,, VI, 14, col. 337; IV, 18, col. 1321.

4Strom*, IV, 18, col. 1321; VII, 10, col. 4815 VIE, n, col. 496.The edition quoted is that of DELABITE-LOMMATZSCH:, Berlin, 1831-1848.

However, in case of texts more difficult to find, the volume and column of

Migne's Greek Pafrology (XI-XVII) have been noted, together with the volumeand page o Lommatasch, Works: HUET, Orig&wana, Rouen, 1668. E. R.

REDEPENNINGJ Origenes, Bonn, 1841-1846. J. DENIS, De la, Philosophic d'Ori-

tfne, Paris, $884. C. BIGG, The Christian Pktonists ofAlexandria, Oxford, 1886.


man of a knowledge truly universal, who possessed all the

learning of his time, though he did not search all its various

parts with the same thoroughness; a soul eminently uprightand sincere; a bold mind, which, far from dissembling a diffi-

culty, always looked straight at it, which knew how to doubt,and not to force its own opinion in the questions he thought

open to debate; a mind capable of synthetic and general views,

while his extensive knowledge of the details was marvellous,he was, in the words of Bigg,

1 "the first great scholar, the

first great preacher, the first great devotional writer, the first

great commentator, the first great dogmatist" that the Church

possessed. A great philosopher he was not. True, he was verywell versed in the philosophical systems of antiquity andmade use of them; nevertheless, in this regard, he was not

personally an original thinker nor a creator.

It is in the liepl ap%&v, written in the years 228-231, that

Origen endeavored to sum up and systematize all his doc-

trine; this book is, as it were, the first Summa ever composedin the Church. The author, discarding all controversies, in-

tended to give us a synthesis of our beliefs: "... seriem

quamdam et corpus ex homm omnium ratione perficere, ut

manifestis et necessariis assertionibus de singulis quibusque

quid sit in vero rimetur, et unum, ut diximus, corpus efficiat."2

L. ATZBERGER, Geschichte der christlichen Eschatologie innerhalb der -Dornicti-

nischen Zeit, Friburg in Brisgau, 1896. W. FAERWEATHER, Origen and Greek

Patristic Theology, New York, 1901. F. HAKRER, Die Trinitiitskhre des Kircken-

lehrers Origenes, Ratisbon, 1858. KNITTEL, Des Origenes Lehre von der Mensch-

werdwig des Sohnes Gottes, in the Tkeolog. Quartalschr., voL 54, 1872. CH.

BOYER, La, Redemption dans Origene, Montauban, 1886. M. LANG, Ueber der

Leiblickkeit des Vernunftwesen lei Origenes, Leipsic, 1892. C. KJLECN, Die Frei-

heitskhre des Origenes, Strasburg, 1894. G. CAPITAINE, De Origenis EMca,Minister in Westphalia, 1898. G. ANRICH, Klemens und Origenes als Begrilnder

der Lehre von Fegfeuer, Tubingen, 1902. G. BOKDES, L'Apolog&ique d'Origene

d'apres le Contra Celsim, Cahors, 1900. P. BATEBTOL, UEgtise Naiss. et le

CathoUcisme, p. 355-397.1 The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 115.2 De prinoif.j I, Praefv 10. Except a few fragments preserved in Greek, we


Side by side with the De principiis, we must mention as chief

sources of Origan's theology, his Commentarii in Evangeliwm

Joannis (228-238), the Contra Celsum (249) and the De

Oratione (233-234).

The basis of this theology, he tells us, is ecclesiastical preach-

ing, the Creed as developed and explained by the Church; for

the truth ought to be sought for in the very multiplicity of the

views and errors that spring up on all sides.1 What is this

teaching of the Church? We find it exposed in the first book

of the De principiis (Praei, 4-10). He distinguishes some

doctrines that are certain and universally professed and

taught, and others that are not set forth "manifesta praedica-

tione." Among the former, these are to be reckoned : one God,

creator, author of the two Covenants, who is both just and

kind; Jesus Christ born of the Father before all creatures,

and His minister in creation, Himself being God, who, while

remaining God, was made man and became incarnate; who

put on a body like ours and was born of the Virgin and of the

Holy Ghost; who was truly born, truly suffered, died, rose

again and ascended into Heaven; the Holy Ghost, asso-

ciated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son, the

inspirer of the Old and the New Testament (4). Then the

soul, its immortality, the reward or the chastisement "igniaeterno" which it deserves after death according to its deeds;

the resurrection of the body, man's freewill, the soul's struggle

against the devil and his angels (5); hence the existence of

have unfortunately of the De prwcipvis only a Latin translation made byRufinus in the year 398, in which, the latter strove to palliate the inaccuracies

that were to be found in the original, itself, chiefly as regards the Trinitarian

doctrine. A literal Latin translation made by St. Jerome has almost completely

1 "Cum multi sint qui se putant sentire quae Christi sunt, et nonnulli eontmdrversa a prioribus sentiant, servetur vero ecdesiastica praedicatio per succes-

laordb drdinem ab Apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens;3k sola credenda est veritas quae in nullo ab ecdesiastica et apostoh'ca discor-

dat frsw3it*Qne." (De princip,, I, Praef., 2.)

-EARLY SYSTEMS IN THE EAST 259

this devil and of his angels (6). To this must be added the

creation of the world, its beginning in time, its future ruin (7) ;

the inspiration of the Scriptures and their having two meanings,one apparent and obvious, the other hidden and spiritual (8) ;

in fine, the existence of the good Angels whose services Goduses for the salvation of men (10).^ On the other hand, amongthe questions that are not fully cleared up, Origen mentions

the following: Is the Holy Ghost begotten or not (St. Jerometranslates "Is He made or not")? Is He also Son of God (4)?

Does the soul come "ex seminis traduce" or otherwise (5)?

Are the demons fallen Angels (6)? What was there before the

present world and what shall there be after it has ceased to

exist (7)? Are God and the spirits acrobftara and in what

sense (8, 9)? When were Angels created, what are they and

what is their state? Finally, have the stars a soul or not (10)?

This twofold enumeration is instructive and the distinction,

made by Origen between the truths that are definitively ascer-

tained and those that are still mooted is quite important. The

former, he observes, are the truths the Apostles thought it

was necessary openly to preach to all, "etiam his qui pigriores

erga mquisitionem divinae scientiae videbantur"; the latter

are those of which they have handed over the pursuit to the

"studiosiores" "qui Spiritus dona excellentia mererentur et

praecipue sermonis sapientiae et scientiae gratiam per Spiritumsanctum percepissent (I, Praef., 3)." Of certain things theyhave said "quia sint," and this suffices for the ordinary

faithful, while they have left to those who are more ear-

nest tlie task to find out "quomodo aut unde sint" (ibid.).

This is the field where tKe sagacity of the theologian and of the

exegete will exercise itself.

For the teaching of the Church must be justified and com-

pleted both by Scripture and by sound philosophy.1

Holy

* Zte frincip.t I, Praef.^10,


Scripture is the first source of Theology; and Holy Scripture

is made up of all the words of Jesus Christ: not merely of those

He uttered as man, but also of those He spoke as Word of God,

through Moses and the Prophets.1 In fact, Origen is eminently

the theologian of Scripture: it is always Holy Writ he en-

deavors to explain, on which he rests and which he consults

to get an answer to his questions ;and we know what extensive

works he undertook in regard to the sacred text.

This Holy Writ, he continues, contains three meanings, cor-

responding to the very constitution of man: a somatic or literal

meaning, a psychical or moral meaning, a pneumatic or spi-

ritual meaning. The first is the "communis et historialis in-

tellectus": it suffices for the edification of the "simpliciores";the second is for the edification of those who are progressing;

finally, the third,"lex spiritualis," is for the edification of the

perfect.2 Sometimes these last two senses are not easily dis-

tinguished one from the other; nevertheless we can see in

many cases and from the examples given by Origen that the

psychical or moral sense is that which applies to the relations of

the individual soul with God and the moral law; while the

spiritual sense is more far reaching and applies to myste-

ries, to the universal Church and her history, to the future

world and to Heaven.

Does it follow that all the passages of Scripture can be

explained in this threefold meaning? No; there are espe-

cially some that cannot be understood in the literal meaning.God has, as it were, thrown them on our way, to remind us

that the Sacred Books have a higher import. Passages of this

kind are not found in the Old Testament alone, but also in the

Gospels and Apostolic writings. Origen gives some examples;

however, he denies that by this process he does away with

* De prinrip., I, Praef., i.

* De prinrip., IV, n; d. In Lottie., horn. V, i, Lorn., IX, 239; P. G., XU,447-


the historical and literal sense of Holy Writ; for these cases,

he adds, are evidently mere exceptions: "A nobis evidenter

decernitur in quam plurimis servari et posse et oportere

historiae veritatem." *

How did he justify this system of allegory? First of all,

by the practical impossibility of understanding literally cer-

tain Biblical narratives; then by the authority and example of

St. Paid.2 The chief reason, though, that prompted hi per-

sonally to adopt such a mode of interpretation was of a more

universal nature, namely, that the whole visible creation is after

all nothing but an immense symbol of the unseen world, and

every individual, the representation of a suprasensible idea or

fact.3

Just as man was created in God's image, so also every

being was created as the image of a higher reality. Unable

to reach these realities, the mass of men must accept the sym-bols that bring it indirectly in relation with them, while the

perfect Christian's privilege consists in piercing, as it were,

through these images and in reaching the very mysteries theyconceal.

This was indeed a lofty conception, yet fraught with great

dangers: for it afforded room to depart from the letter of

Holy Writ under the pretext of a deeper meaning; to maintain

or reject, at one's will, its historical part; finally, to substitute

one's fancy for the rule of faith.

The second source to which Origen had recourse to explain

and make the Church's teaching fruitful, was philosophy,

any kind of philosophy; for, like Clement, Origen threw aside

only the systems that denied God and His Providence.4 Heheld that philosophers had learned by revelation at least some

1 De princip., IV, 15-19.2 De princip., IV, 13.8 In Cantic. Canticor. Lib. m, vers. 9, Lorn., XV, 48; P. G., XTLE, 173, 174;

In Levit., horn. V, i, Lorn., IX, 239; P. G., XII, 447.4 ST. GREGORY THAJJMATOBGUS, In Origen. oratio panegyr., 13, 14.


of the lofty ideas they had expressed, that" they often agree

with the law of God,1 and that the latter completes their

affirmations. However he is less enthusiastic for them than

Clement was: he quotes them more seldom and upbraids themwith having fallen into many errors, tolerated idolatry, spoken

only for an 61ite, and lacked the authority necessary to teach

souls.2 He seems to have realized the inefficacy of the attempts

made before him to draw from Philosophy the confirmation

and the explanation of dogmas; hence his efforts to imbuehimself with its methods and spirit are greater than the atten-

tion he pays to its doctrines. It is in this that Origen is trulya philosopher, viz., by the turn of his mind, restless and in-

quiring, his liking for speculation, the boldness with which hedares to reason even in supernatural problems. Thus, too, wemay account for Porphyry's judgment that Origen lived as a

Christian, and thought as a Greek, and introduced the ideas

of the Greeks into the myths of other nations.3

For it would be a real mistake to believe that Origen's dog-matic conclusions properly so called were seriously influenced

by the particular philosophy he had studied. True, he hadbeen, about the year 210, the pupil of Ammonius Saccas, whofounded the Neo-Platonic school, and the fellow-student of

Plotinus, the author of the Enneades; still our author is- not

truly a Neo-Platonist. All the surroundings in which he lived

told on his mind more than a system bearing a particularname; and if Plato's philosophy, as understood at Alexandriain the beginning of the third century, left on him its impres-sion, it is far more because he highly esteemed its tendenciesand spirit than because he adopted its doctrines.4

1 Contra Cels., V, 3; In Genes., horn. XIV, 3.* Contra Cds., V, 43; VH, 47; VI, 2; 7ft Genes., horn. XIV, 3; ST. GREG-

OBX TK&TOAT., In Origen. orat. fanegyr., 14.f

ETTSEB., Ecd. Hist., VI, 19,

G.,I, 78i,ff.; History ofDogma, voLH, pp. 332, ff.

We must not forget that Neo-Platonism was' systematized into a body of doo

These are the principles that guided Origen in the expositionof his theology. We may see now how he applied them.

His God, like that of Clement, is the somewhat abstract Godof Platonism. He is

"Imtceiva -n)? ov<ra$, ex omni parte fwvds

et ut ita dicam evds . . . incomprehensibilis, inaestimabilis,

impassibilis, aTrpoa-Setfs."*

However, man can know Himnaturally, and in proportion as he frees himself from sub-

jection to matter.2 Besides, this monad is T/oicfe or trinitas;

it contains three hypostases: the Father, the Son and the HolyGhost.3

The second term of this trinity is the Word, the Son. It is

worthy of remark that when Origen comes to speak of Him, he

starts with the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, as set forth in

the Symbol. His teaching may be summed up in three words :

The Word is God and distinct from the Father; He is eternally

begotten; nevertheless He is inferior to the Father; and thus

his doctrine oscillates between the dogma of consubstantiality

in which it logically issues, and subordinationism to which the

problem of creation brings it back. This much,however, should

be said in its behalf: it leaves no room whatever for Arianism

strictly so called.

Let us remember, first of all, that Origen had known Modal-ism at Rome and never ceased to oppose it, by affirming the

real distinction between the Son and the Father. There are

some, he says, who regard the Father and the Son as not nu-

merically distinct (apiOfjL<S),bMt as one, &, ovpovovova-la aXXA

trine only later on, and that the Enneades of Plotinus, which may be regarded as

its text-book, was published only in the year 269, sixteen years after the death

of Origen.1 Contra Cds., VI, 64; In Joan., XIX, i, Lomm., H, 149; ? &, XIV, 536;

De princip., I, i, 5, 6; II, 4, 4; m, 5, 2.

a De principal I, i, 7.'

In Joan., II, 6 (Lomm., I, 109, no; P. G.JXIV, 128);

VI, 17 (Lomm,, I, 227; P. G., XIV, 257); In Isaiam, horn. I, 4; IV, i.

18


/caJ, vTro/ceifAevy, and as merely diverse /card TWOS enwo (as, ov

icarh faroffraa-iv.1

Origen taught, on the contrary, that ere/w/car' ovafav teal vTro/ceCfJievov ecrrw 6 vlbs rov TrarpoV; that there

are Svo 77; faroa-rdo-eL TTpaypara.2 The reader will notice that

our author sometimes confuses the terms ova-fa and uTroWacw,sometimes opposes one to the other: though he always

gives to the latter a well-defined meaning which will ulti-

mately triumph.Thus really distinct from the Father, the Son is not created,

but begotten, and from all eternity. This last feature is one

that Origen sets forth most clearly: "Non enim dicimus, sicut

haeretici putant, partem aliquam substantiae Dei in filtum

versam, aut ex nullis substantibus fllium procreatum a patre,id est extra substantiam suam, ut fuerit aliquando quandonon fuerit, sed, abscisso omni sensu corporeo, ex invi^ibili et

incorporeo Verbum et sapientiam genitam dicimus absque ulla

corporali passione, velut si voluntas procedat a mente." 3

And refuting Anus beforehand, he goes on to reaffirm that

"non erat quando (Filius) non erat"; for the Son, he ob-

serves, is the brightness of the eternal light, and light neces-

sarily shines always with brightness.4

How does this generation take place? Origen has just said

it. The Son is not a part of the substance of the Father : when

begetting His Son, He did not sever Him from Himself; for

the Son is not a prolation (7rpo/3oX^).5

Nay, this generation is

not an act that has a beginning and an end: it is an act eter-

nal and continuous as the brightness of the light that always

1 In Joan., X, 21, Lomm. I, 350; P. G., XIV, 376.a DC Oratione, 15; Contra Cek., VIH, 12.* De princip., IV, 28.4 In Epist. ad Rom. I, 5, Lomm., VI, 22, 23; P. G., XIV, 848, 849; In

Epist. ad Heb.jragm., Lomm,, V, 297; P. G., XTV, 1307.* D* prindp., IV, 28; In Jer&m., horn. IX, 4, Lomm., XV, 212; P. G.,

Xm, 357; ct De frinoip^ I, 2,6; In Joan., I, 23, Lomm., I, 50; P. G.,

XIV, 65.

shines: still, time and eternity even are not to be mentioned,for the Trinity is above all this.

1

Thus begotten from the Father's substance, the Son is God,not because of an extrinsic participation (/cara /jLerovcrtav), but

essentially: rear ovo-iav e<rrl 0ecfe:2 He is of the Father's

substance: He is GÔOVO-IOS with Him. This word is found in

Origen, if the following translation is correct:"Sic et sapientia

ex Deo procedens ex ipsa Deo substantia generatur. Sic

nihilominus et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhoeaeesse dicitur aporrhoea gloriae omnipotentis pura et sincera.

Quae utraeque similitudines manifestissime ostendunt com-

munionem substantiae esse filio cum patre. Aporrhoea enim

<5/>oi;<Tio9 videtur, id est unius substantiae cum illo cor-

pore ex quo est vel aporrhoea vel vapor."3 In this passage

Origen absolutely discards Anomseanism. If we notice, more-

over, that he sets aside likewise any sharing of the Father's

substance and any irpoô\riywe may conclude that he admits

a strict consubstantiality.

And still, Origen is frankly subordinationist. True, the Son

is of the Father's substance; He possesses it, but less fully

than the Father; it is, as it were, weakened, lessened in Him,since it is communicated and since, besides, the Son is the

Father's instrument. Origen is led to this conclusion by his

anxiety to uphold against the Medalists the distinction be-

tween the two persons, by the necessity to explain the Biblical

texts that set forth the Son as inferior to the Father, and by the

need he has of a mediator to account for the creation. His

Word is that of Athanasius, and yet still preserves something

1 In J&em., horn. IX, 4, Lomm., XV, 212; P. G., XTTT, 357;

IV, 28.1 Sdecta in Psabnos, horn. Xm, 134. He is, like the Father, a&rooxwâ, afa-o-

fct/cawKn^, atiroaXi}0eia, aro/3curtXea (In Mattk., XIV, 7; Lomm., ICE, 283;

P. (?., Xffi, 1197; &InJom., I, 27).8 In Epist. ad Hebr. fragm., Lomm,, V, 299, 100 and XXTV, 358, 359; P. G.,

XIV, 1308.


of that of Philo. He is not o Beds nor aurofleoV, but 060?, Sevre/wHe is not, like the Father,

-

avroayaOdv, aTrXw? ayaOfaXXa/cTG)? ayaffds, but only slft&v aryarddrjTos:

x He is not

absolutely simple, but rather, holding the middle between the

one and the complex. He contains the Father's ideas, the

types of the beings that can be brought into reality (a-vo-rrffjia

ffeaprjjjLdTGDv) :2 He does not know the Father as well as He is

known by Him, and the glory He receives from His Father is

greater than the glory He procures to Him.3Likewise, His

action is less widespread: it exercises itself only on rational

beings (Mpiva rh \oyiKo) .4 In short, He is God, but under the

Father (BewKarct, TOVT&V o\&v 6ebv /cal TraTepa)* Hence weshould not simply and absolutely address Him our prayers.We may offer Him our prayers, for He is God, but merely in

order that, as our High Priest, He may present them to the

Father.6Nay, some expressions still more objectionable, on

which it is unnecessary to insist, may be found here andthere.7

As we said before, Origen placed among the questions that

had not yet been decided by the teaching of the Church, the

origin of the Holy Ghost, viz., His divinity: "Utrum (Spiritus

Sanctus) natus an innatus (St. Jerome: factus an infectus), vel

filius etiarn Dei ipse habendus sit necne?" 8Owing to the

kck of Biblical and traditional data, he did not know what to

think. In many places, indeed, he seems to affirm1 the divinityof the Holy Spirit, and, taking all in all, inclines obviously to

1 Contra Cds., V, 39; De princip., I, 2, 13; cf. In Joan., VI, 23.2 In Joan., TL, 12; I, 22, Lomm., I, 41, 42; P. G., XIV, 56.1 De princip., IV, 35; In Joan., XXXn, 18, Lomm., 473; P. G., XIV, 821.

5 Contra Cels., II, 9; VT, 60.

Contra Cds., V, 4; Vm, 13, 26; De orat., 14, 15.T Krfau {In Joan., I, 22, Lomm., I, 40; P. G., XIV, 56); irpeffpfocLTov vdrrw

rfy b^iww&rw (Contra Cds., V, 37).


this side: he complains that there are some people "minora

quam dignum est de eius divinitate sentientes"; he adds that

everything was made, barring the nature of the Father, the

Son and the Holy Spirit, and then, that nowhere is it stated

that the Holy Spirit is "factura vel creatura"; that He is eter-

nal and does not pass from ignorance to science; that Heshares in the Father and the Son's honors and dignity, and

that, like them, He is holy.1 In fine St. Basil'could bring for-

ward our author as a witness of the Catholic doctrine againstthe Pneumatomachians.2

However, now and then, he hesitates

to draw conclusions. No doubt, it is pious to believe that the

Holy Ghost was not created; and yet, he says, since every-

thing was made by the Son, the Holy Ghost too must be His

work: el Trdvra St& rov \6yov e'y&ero, /cal ro Trvevpa Bict, rov

\dyov eyeverQ) eit r&v TrdvrG&v Twy%dvov?In any case, the Holy Spirit is inferior to the Son (uTroSeeer-

repov TOV St' ov ey&ero).4 On this point, Origen is most

positive. The sphere of His action is more limited than that

of the Son. The Father's action extends to all beings, the

Son's to all rational creatures, and the Holy Ghost's only to the

just: en Se tfrrov ro irvevfjw, TO ayiov errl /JLOVOV? robs aytovs

After all, the Trinity is then conceived by Origen in a de-

scending order, which, though maintaining the unity of nature

in the divinfc persons, still determines, as it were, the exact

degree of its fulness in each one of them. This is an error which

he was to hand down to manyother scholars and of which Greek

Theology did not rid itself without much difficulty. But even

1DepHncip., I, praef., 4; I, 3, 3J I, 3, 4J H, 2, i; n, 7, 35 IV, 28; . V, 35;

In Isatiam, horn, IV, i.

8 St. Basil (De Spirtiu Sancto, XXIX, 73) quotes In Joan., VI, 17, Lomm.,I, 227; P. G., XIV, 257.

*InJoan., n, 6, Lomm., 1, 113, no; P. G., XCV, 132.

4 In few., H, 6, Lomm., 1, 113; P. G., XIV, 132.*


though he did not altogether correct for he did lessen it

this defective feature of the Apologists' Trinitarian teaching,

still at least he set aside unhesitatingly its second defective ele-

ment, viz., the theory of the Son's temporal generation. Here

Origen clearly anticipates the Nicene definition. Some have

tried to decrease his merit, by observing that, as he admitted

the creation ab aeterno, he was bound to admit also the eternal

generation of the Logos. This is true; however, between these

two eternities, that of the creatures and that of the Son, Ori-

gen sets a very great difference: "Haec enim sola Trinitas est

quae onmem sensum intelligentiae non solum temporalisverum etiam aeternalis excedit. Caetera vero quae sunt extra

Trinitatem in saeculis et in temporibus metienda sunt."

Again: "Sempiternum vel aeternum proprie dicitur quodneque initium ut esset hafouit,neque cessare unquam potest esse

quod est. Hoc autem designatur apud Joannem cum dicit

quoniam Deus lux est. Splendor autem lucis eius sapientia

sua est, non solum secundum quod lux est, sed et secundum

quod sempiterna lux est, ita ut aeternus et aeternitatis splendorsit sapientia sua. Quod si integre intelligatur, manifeste de-

clarat quia subsistentia Filii ab ipso Patre descendit, sed non

temporaliter neque ab ullo alio initio, nisi, ut dixrmus, ab ipsoDeo." l

As we have just said, Origen admitted the creation ab

aet&no. This is one of the charges brought against hrm, andone that is justified. The eternity of the divine omnipotenceseemed to him incompatible with the hypothesis of a duration

when nothing but God would have existed, for omnipotencecan be conceived only on condition that it effectively exer-

cises itself on real beings.2 Hence there must have always

existed some creatures. Which then? Spirits before all others

; but not pure spirits, otherwise they could not have

1 De prwdp., I, 2, n; IV, 28; cf. IT, g, a.

dp., I, 2, 10; cf. HJ, $, 3, 4.

EARLY SYSTEMS IN. THE EAST 269

been joined to ethereal and subtile bodies. For, though he

betrays some hesitation, our author does not believe that, out-

side the Trinity, there can exist a spirit altogether free frommatter and incorporeal.

1

All these spirits were created equal in powers and gifts, andfree. Here we reach one of Origen's most daring conceptions.He had been struck by the diversity of physical and moral

conditions, of talents and qualities, to be noticed in the world;

and, instead of appealing, to explain this phenomenon, to the

free will of God, he seeks that explanation in the freedom of

creatures. All spirits had been created equal; however, as theywere free, all were not equally faithful to God. Hence arose

the differences we see among rational beings. Their fall, their

fcaTaftoXtf, is the real cause of the present condition of the

universe.2 For among these spirits, some became the Angels,the heavenly powers, with their hierarchy, their degrees, their

functions proportioned to their merit; others, clothing them-

selves with luminous matter, became the sun, the moon and

the stars; others too, growing cool because of their departurefrom God, became the souls of men (^1^*7, from tjrvxa, to cool) ;

others finally became devils, with their bodies more subtile

than those of men, more heavy than those of Angels.8

But,

just as the actual working of free will has modified God's

original plan and brought about the present state of things, so

also can it change this order again, nay indefinitely. Bydoing good or evil, spirits can climb up or go down the scale

of beings; by their virtuous lives, human souls can win back

the more spiritual condition from which they fell; and, in the

main, a new world can begin after the present world is over.4

1 De princip., I, 6, xx; n, 2, i, 2; IV, 35, St. Jerome's tranala,t.kffi.

8 De prfacip., I, 9, 6; II, 9, 5, 6; IH, 5, 4.8 De princip., I, 8, x, 2, 4; n, 8, 3 (St. Jerome's translation); It, i, 1-4;

I, Praef., 8; HI, 5, 4; Centra Cds., I, 32, 33; In /<ww*., I, 17.4 De prmcip., n, 8, 3; m, 6, 3 (St. Jemme's translation.); cL Contra Cels.,

IV, 69*


Evil, then, was brought into this world by the free will of

creatures; and though the presence of evil does not do awaywith the harmony of the cosmos, and is no argument against

the goodness of God who can draw good out of it, yet evil does

exist.1 One sin or even several sins were committed by the

spirits and by the human souls before the actual state of things.

Is this original sin? We will see presently that Origen assigns

it to another time : though we may remark, for the time being,

that he is most positive as to the fact that all men, even the

child one day old, are sinners. He appeals to the text of Job,

I44> 5

,in the Septuagint, : TtV yap /caOapbs ecrrai CLTTO PVTTOV*

a\\* ovdel?) eav ical pla y/Jiepa 6 ^8/09 avrov enl r^9 7779, and

thus accounts for the baptism of children, "pro remissione

peccatorum," "secundum ecclesiae observantiain." 2 Whenthere is

'

question as to what this blemish consists in, and

whence it arises, then his hesitation begins. In his commen-

tary on the Epistle to the Romans (59), Origen seems to make

original sin consist in the fault committed by the souls before

their descent upon earth, when they were still spirits, but

elsewhere, in fact in most places, he inclines towards another

hypothesis. He observes that the word pwro? of the Book of

Job designates not a sin properly so called, but a stain in gen-eral: "neque enim id ipsum significant sordes atque peccata."

3

Now it is certain that, by the mere fact of its being united to

a body, and in this very union, every soul contracts a blemish:

"Quaecumque anima in came nascitur iniquitatis et peccatisorde polluituri"

4Every child then, when being born, is

marked with this stain, and Origen feels inclined to regard this

1 De princip., Ut 9, 6; Contra Cek., IV, 70, 54; In Numeros, horn. XIV, 2.* In Matth., X, 23; In Levit., VHI, 3 (Lornm,, IX, 318; P. G., XH, 496);

In Epist. ad Rom.,. V, 9 (Lomm., VI, 397); P. , XIV, 1043, 1044; In Lucam,from. XIV (Lomm., V, 135; P. G., XIH, 1834).

8I^Iwcow^ horn. XIV, Lomm., V, 134; P. G., XHI, 1834.

4 In Leo&> Vm, 3," In Lwam, horn. XIV, Lomm,, V, 134; P* G. XEEI,

EARLY ^SYSTEMS IN THE EAST 271

original sin. Moreover, whence does it come to pass that the

flesh thus stains the soul united with it? Perhaps our author

intends to answer this question when he remarks that, as

Adam begot his first child only after his sin, our body is byitself a body of sin; and also that, as all men were contained

in Adam dwelling in Eden, all were, with him and in Mm (cumipso et in ipso) expelled from the earthly paradise, that is, all

undergo the consequences of Adam's sin.1

If such is the case,

Origen sets forth an almost satisfactory theory of original sin:

at any rate, he supplies its elements, though he does not bringthem sufficiently together nor combine them closely enough.

Again, as the native stain is a universal fact, we are obligedto admit as a universal fact also that man follows his evil in-

clinations andcommits evildaily : TT/W TO apaprdveiv 7re$vtcap&>?

Under the influence of concupiscence, bad example and the

devil, sin takes deep root, multiplies, and permeates every-

thing in us.3

Jesus Christ came into this world to expiate this sin. His

soul, created from the beginning with the other spirits, alone

remained absolutely faithful to God, and, united to the Logosat first by its free choice, it saw this union become a second

nature and acquire an immovable stability, in virtue of a long

habit of practising good,4 To save us, the Logos, thus joined

to the soul, united Himself, through the soul's intermediary,5

to a body, to one which was beautiful and perfect, since

every soul has the body it deserves, befitting the part which

the soul is destined to fulfil.6

Jesus is born of a virgin; His

1 In Rom., V, 9 (Lomm., VI, 397; P. G.,"XIV, 1047); V, i (Lomm., VI,

326; P. G., XIV, 1009, 1010).* Contra Cds., m, 66; HI, 62; In Roman., I, i, Lornm., VI, 14; P. <?.,

XIV, 840. *

De prineip., EH, 2, 2; Contra Cds., HI, 69,* De prindp., H, 6, 5, 6.

B De princip.y II, 6, 3.* Contra Cds., VI, 75-77J I, 3*, 33-

birth is real; He assumes our weaknesses, our infirmities, our

possibility; and He takes our legitimate passions, and all that

belongs to the rational soul.1Docetism, as well as Apollinarian-

ism, which is still to come, are discarded by Origen, althoughhe retains some insignificant traces of the former that prob-

ably came to him from the Gnostics.2j

Jesus Christ then, is and remains truly man in the Incarna-

tion; on the other hand, in the same mystery, the Word too

does not change, nor lose anything of what He was: r?) ova-fa

pev&v Xo'yo?:3

it follows that in the Saviour there are two

natures: He is God and man, "Deus Homo:" "Aliud est in

Christo deitatis eius natura, quod est unigenitus films Patris,

et alia humana natura quam in novissimis temporibus pro

dispensation suscepit"4

Yet, though there are two natures,

there is only one being: "For the Word of God, chiefly after

the dispensation, became one (&) with the soul and body of

Jesus." Jesus is a-vvOerov TI xpypa.* In his attempts to state

this union with as much precision as possible, Origen comparesit to the union of the iron and of the fire in the red hot iron,

and he adds, besides, that the body and the soul are not merelyassociated with the Word (xotvtovfa) but are joined to it by a

union and a mixture (evaxret, fcal ava/cpdaei), which have madethem share in the divinity and transformed them into God

(e& Qtov fjwafitfiriKevaL).* No doubt, these expressions are

beyond the mark and ought to be corrected by what we havesaid above: yet they show the idea which the author forms

and endeavors to express, of the unity in Jesus Christ. Heexpresses it also by the communication of idioms, which he not

1 Contra Ce&., I, 34, 35, 37, 69; IE, 69; D3, 25; n, 23; I, 66; II, 9; JD<?

princip., IV, 31.* Contra Cefc., VI, 77; H, 64, 65; cf . HE, 41, 48.* Contra Cafe., IV, 15; VH, 17; VEI, 4*; In J0*n., XXVm, 14, Lomm.,

II, 3S4-, P. G., XTV, 720.4fte printip., I, 2, i; n, 6, 2, 3; Contra Cds., VH, 17.

1 Omfr Cefc., n, 9; I, 66. Contra Ce&, IU, 41; De prindp., H, 6, 6,

EARLY SYSTEMS IN -THE EAST 273

only uses, but of which also he is the first to state the law with

precision, and to show the grounds in the hypostatic union.1

However, if we must interpret in a favorable way the greatDoctor's texts on the transformation of Jesus Christ's human-

ity during His mortal life, it seems that we cannot do the samefor those which refer to His glorious life. According to him,not only the body of Jesus becomes more subtile after the

Resurrection,2 but the humanity seems even to vanish away

altogether and melt, as it were, into the divinity: "Tune homo

fuit, nunc autem homo esse cessavit." As the latter, the

former becomes immense and present everywhere: "Ipse

(Jesus) tamen ubique est et universa percurrit Nee ultra in-

telligamus eum in ea eriguitate in qua nobis propter nos

effectus est." 3

Origen studied the work of Christ upon earth, under nearlyall its aspects, and he had the opportunity, in his extensive

commentaries, to set forth all its results. Jesus Christ is our

lawgiver, the Moses of the New Law: He appeared as the

teacher of the just, the physician of sinners, a pattern of

the perfect Hfe, whose imitation leads us to a share in the

divine life;4 He appeared, however, chiefly as our redeemer

and the victim for our sins.

Origen conceived in a twofold way the liberating act of

Jesus Christ. In several passages, he sees in it a redemption,a repurchase properly socalled. By sin we have been deliv-

ered over to the devil, we have been made his slaves, in the

ancient meaning of the word, his property. To redeem us,

,69 3i IV, 31.* Contra Cds., n, 62; cf. 64-66.8 In Luc., horn. XXDE (Lomm., V, 197; P. G., Xm, 1875; consult, how-

ever, Delarue's note on this passage); In Jerem.* horn. XV, 6 (Lomm., XV, 28;

P. a, XIH, 436); / Joan., XXXH, 17 (Lomin., H, 463; P. G., XIV, 813);

Defrincip.,Tt, n, 6.

* Contra, Cek., m, 7; IV, 22, 32; H, 32, 75; m, 62; I, 68; VIE, 17, 56;De princip., IV, 31,


Jesus Christ gives up to Satan His own life and soul, Himself

our ransom, the price He pays for us (avrd\\ay/jia) : "To whomdid Jesus surrender His soul as a ransom for many? Assur-

edly not to God. Is it not then to the evil [spirit]? For the

latter was our master until he received our ransom, viz., the

soul of Jesus."l

Then, side by side and parallel with this,

our author develops the theory of the substitutio mcaria and of

the propitiatory sacrifice. Jesus Christ substituted Himself

for us: He is our moral leader who took on Himself our sins:

"Peccata generis humani imposuit super captit suum; ipse

(Jesus) est enim caput corporis ecclesiae suae." 2 Thus bear-

ing our sins, He suffered for us freely and because He was

willing to do so.3 A true priest, He offered to His Father a

real sacrifice of propitiation of which He Himself is the victim:

"quo scilicet per hostiam sui corporis propitium hominibus

faceret Deum . . . secundum hoc ergo quod hostia est, pro-fusione sanguinis sui propitiatio efficitur in eo quod dat re-

nussionem praecedentium delictonun." 4 In this way Godand the devil received what was due to them, respectively.

This redemption of Jesus was universal; not only all men,until the end of the world, find in Him their Saviour, but His

power extends beyond the limits of this earth; it reaches all

reasonable beings that need to be redeemed: ov /JLOVOV VTT^P

av0pd>7ra)v Cl^trofc) k'n'eOaveVi aXXA teal virep r&v

1 In Mattk., XVI, 8 (Lomm., IV, 27; P. G., XIH, 1397)5 XH, 28; Contra

Cels., I, 31; In Rom., IV, n (Lomm., VI, 308; P. G., XIV, 1000); In Exod.,VI, 9 (Lomm., IX, 68; P. G., XH, 306); Exhort, ad martyr., 12; Contra Cels.,

VHI, 27, 54, 64.2 In Levit., horn. I, 3; In Joan., XXVHI, 14, Lomm., H, 355; P. G., XIV,

720, 721.

Contra Cels., I, 54; H, 44; VH, 57.4 In Epist. ad Rom., IH, 8, Lomm., VI, 205, 213; P. G., XIV, 946, 950;

cf. In Numeros, horn. XXIV, i, Lomm., X, 292, 293, ff.; P. G., Xn, 756, 757.* In Joan., 1, 40, Lomm., I, 79; P. G., XIV, 93; In Matth., XTH, 8, Lomm.,

m, 227; P. G., Xm, 1116; De prmcip., m, 5, 6j Contra Cels., VH, 17.

It depends on man's free will to profit by the redemption

brought to us by Jesus. We have seen how strongly Origenaffirms the existence of that liberty and how he makes it respon-sible even for our present state. Sin has not done away with

it: freely we go to God, freely we are lost. Not indeed that in

our good works we can do without the divine help; on the con-

trary, grace is their necessary principle; however, all dependson us, as all depends on grace: God and man must work to-

gether. To express this necessary union, the great Doctor has

found the definitive formulas, which we might believe the

products of a later age: "E duobus unus effici debetintellectus,

id est, ut neque quae in nostro arbitrio suntputemus sine adiu-

torio Dei effici posse, neque ea quae in manu Dei sunt putemus

absque nostris actibus et studiis et proposito consummari." 1

Thus faith itself comes from God (Swdpei nvl duo) ;be-

sides, to be genuine, it must be accompanied by good works and

the practice of the virtues it inspires. On this condition alone

it justifies us.2 And yet, even then, faith is for Origen only the

lowest degree of Christian life. Above faith there is science

(yz>5<ro), since "according to our teaching also, it is far better

to be convinced of our dogmas by reason and science than bymere faith." 3 On this point Clement's disciple has taken over

Ms master's doctrine. Like him, though with less insistence, he

divides the Christians into two categories, and, like him, in-

troduces a rigid ascetical and moral element into the concept1 De princip., HI, i, 22. And also: "Non sufficit ad perfidendam salutem

sola voluntas human a, nee idoneus est mortalis cursus ad consequenda caeles-

tia, et ad capiendam pabnanx supremae vocationis Dei in Christo Jesu, nisi

haec ipsa voluntas nostra bona, promptumque proposition et quaecumque ilia

in nobis esse potest industria divino vel iuvetiir vel muniatur auxilio . . . Ita

etiam nostra perfectio non quidem nobis cessantibus et otiosis efficitur, nee tamenconsnmmatio ejus nobis, sed Deo, qui est prima et praecipua causa opens ad-

scribetur" (De princip., HI, i, 18).2 Contra Cds., VIE, 43; HI, 69, 71, 72; In Joan., XEX, 6, Lomm., IE, 190;

P. G., XIV, 569; !*> Lew*-, H, 4; XII, 3; Lonun., DC, 389; P. G., XH, 662.3 Contra Cels., 1, 13,- In Matikn XH, 15, Lomm., m, 158, 159; P. G., XIH,

of the true Gnostic : the latter is expected to practise continence

and virginity, retirement and separation from the world.1

However, as we have seen, Origen shows on every occasion

preoccupations which are, so to speak, more ecclesiastical than

those of Clement, and this is why his informations in regard

to practical Christianity and worship are more abundant and

precise. The Church, he tells us, is the city of God.2Outside

of her, no salvation is possible.3

Baptism washes away all

sins;4 and since little children themselves are sinners, the

Church imparts Baptism to them, in keeping with Apostolic

tradition.5

Still, martyrdom, which is the Baptism of blood

may replace it, nay, is superior to the Baptism of water. 6

But the baptized Christian may fall back into sin: what

remedies has he still at his disposal? Origen enumerates six

remedies that can cure him: martyrdom, alms, forgiveness

for the wrongs he has endured, zeal for the conversion of sin-

ners, love of God and finally penance.7 His doctrine on this

last point is interesting tostudy. Penancerequiresfirst of all the

acknowledgment of the fault: "Vide ergo quid edocet nos Scrip-

tura divina, quia oportet peccatum non celare intrinsecus." 8

This acknowledgment ought to be made to the bishop, to the

ministers of the Church: "Cum non erubescit (peccator) sacer-

doti Domini indicare peccatum suum et quaerere medicinam."fl

1 Contra Cds., I, 26; VH, 48; VIE, 55; In Levit., XI, i.

* Contra Cds., HI, 30.3 "Nemo se decfpiat: extra hanc domum, id est, extra Ecclesiam nemo

salvatur. Nam si quis foris exierit, mortis suae ipse fit reus." (In Hbr. Jesu

Nave, horn. HI, 5, Lomm., XI, 34; P. G., XH, 841, 842).* In Joan., VI, 17, Lomm., I, 227; P. G., XIV, 257; In Matth., XV, 23, etc.5 In Rom., V, 9, Lomm., VI, 397; P. G., XIV, 1047; In Lucam, horn. XTV,

Lomm., V, 135; P. G., Xm, 1835; In Lent., VIE, 3, Lomm., DC, 318; P. G.,

xn, 496.8 Exhort* ad martyr., 30, 34, 50.7 In Levit., II, 4, Lomm., IX, 191; P. G., XII, 418.* In Psalvt. XXXVH, horn. H, 6, Lomm., XII, 266, 267; P. G., XH, 1386,9 In Levit., n, 4, Lomm., IX, 192, 193; P. <?., XH, 418,


"Consequens enim est ut . . . etiam ministri et sacerdotes

ecclesiae peccata populi accipiant, et ipsi, imitantes magistrum,remissionem peccatorum populo tribuant." 1 To these

"ministers and priests" it belongs to judge whether or not

public penance should be done "qui (languor) in conventu

totius ecclesiae exponi debeat et curari,"2 and to forgive sin;

a function which belongs to all of them, but to the bishop in

a special manner: "Israelita, si peccet, id est laicus, ipse suumnon potest auferre peccatum: sed requirit levitam, indiget

sacerdote, imo potius et adhuc horum aliquid eminentius

quaerit: pontifice opus est, ut peccatorum remissionem possit

accipere."3

The question is merely to know whether all sins can be for-

given, and whether the official penance can be granted indis-

criminately and several times for all kinds of sins. To this

question we find the following answer, formulated in the great

Doctor'swritings, as they have come down to us. We ought to

distinguish between ordinary mortal sins (culpae mortales)

and the "crimina mortalia" (irpos QdvaTov), viz., idolatry,

adultery, fornication and voluntary murder.4 As to the former,

one can always do penance for them and obtain pardon: "Ista

vero communia (crimina) quae frequenter incurrimus semper

paenitentiam recipiunt and sine intermissione redimuntur." 6

As regards the latter, in his De oratione, 28, written about the

years 233-234, Origen wonders that some claim presumptu-

1 In Lmt., V, 3, Lomm., DC, 246; P. G.t XII, 451-

2 In Psalm. XXXVII, horn. II, 6, Lomm., XH, 267; P. G., XH, 1386.* In Numeros, horn. X, i, Lomm., X, 92; P. G., XIE, 635, and above. How-

ever, in the De oratione, 28 (Lomm., XVTE, 240; P. G., XI, 528), Origen seems

to ascribe to the spiritual man (Twv^anic6s) the power to remit sins. Cf. In

Leoit., V, 12, Lomm., IX, 268, 269; P. G., XH, 464-4 In Levit., XV, 2, Lomm., IX, 424, 425; P- G., XH, 560, 561; De oratione>

28, Lomm., XVH, 241, 243; P. G., XI, 528, 529.6 In Levtt., XV, 2, Lomm., IX, 245; P. G., XH, 561.

ously the right to condone them: l a right which surpasses the

priestly dignity. This incapability of being remitted is up-

held in regard to apostasy in the Series of the Commentaries

on St. Matthew? 114, which were written after the year 244,

although Origen asks himself whether apostates cannot at

times plead a certain ignorance as an excuse. However, wesee that, several years before the year 244, the nth and the

1 5th Homily on Leviticus concede that penance can be done

once but only once for the graviora crimina: "In gravi-

oribus enim criminibus semel tantum paenitentiae conceditur

locus."3

"Quod et si aliquis est qui forte praeventus est in

huiuscemodi peccatis, admonitus nunc verbo Dei, ad auxilium

confugiat paenitentiae, ut si semel admisit secundo non faciat,

aut si et secundo aut etiam tertio praeventus est, ultra non

addat" 4 How can we account for this contradiction? If

we remember that it occurs chiefly between a work of which the

Greek text is in our hands the De oratione and works of

which we have only the Latin translation, the most likely ex-

planation is that the Latin translator of the fourth centurymodified in his translation the teaching of the original texts in

order to make it agree with the discipline of his own time. Ori-

gen, as well as Tertullian, regarded the crimina mortalia as

beyond forgiveness: but he has been corrected in this point,as in many others.

Our author's Eucharistic doctrine is not less interesting tjian

his doctrine on Penance, and presents to us, though with more

emphasis, the two tendencies we have already noticed in the

teaching of Clement of Alexandria: one that holds before us

the naked, common and literal truth of the real presence; the

1 Lomm., XVn, 241, 243; P- G., XI, 528, 529.2 Lomm., V, 17, 18; P. G., XIII, 1763.8 In Lait.

s XV, 2, Lomm., DC, 424, 425; P. {?., XH, 561. The homilies onLeviticus are probably anterior to the year 244.

< In Leoit., XI, 2, Lomm., IX, 380, 381; P. G., Xn, 533,


otter that shows to us in the consecrated elements the sym-bols of more recondite and exclusively spiritual realities.

For on one hand, Christians, giving thanks to the Creator, eat

"the loaves that have become through prayer a body (o-^a),a body holy and making holy those who use it with a right in-

tention." 1 When the faithful receive this "body of the Lord,"

they hold it with the greatest care and respect, lest some parcelof it should fall. They would consider themselves guilty andin this they are right if by their own neglect, something of it

should be lost. Origen observes that they do not take so

much pains in preserving the word of God.2 This is the

more common, the more simple belief in regard to the Eucha-

rist: KowoTcpav Trepl Tfft evxapunlas etfSo^rjz/.3 The great

Doctor does not disown it: not at all; but he adds his own

commentary. After seeing in the Eucharist the Lord's body,he sees in it moreover the symbols of the teaching of Jesus

Christ, which also is truly our bread: "Possumus vero et aliter

intelligere. Omnis sermo Dei panis est, sed est differentia in

panibus."4 So much so, that now and then he forgets the

reality contained in the mystery, and writes that, When set-

ting before us the bread and wine as His body and blood,

Jesus did not mean to designate the material bread and wine,

but the Word in whose mystery this bread was to be broken

and this chalice to be shed. For what else can both the bodyand blood of the Word-God be, than the speech (word) that

feeds, the speech (word) that brings gladness to the heart? 5

1 Contra, Cels., VIII, 34.8 In Exod., horn. XIII, 3, Lomm., IX, 156; P. G., XH, 391.8 In Joan., XXXII, 16, Lomm., II, 4.59; P. G., XIV, 809.4 In Exod., XHI, 3, 5, Lomm., DC, 402, 403, 409; P. G. 3 XH, 54.7, 550; In

Levit., VII, 5, Lomm., IX, 305, 306; P. ., XII, 486, 487; In Numeros, horn.

XXHI, 6; In Matth., XI, 14, Lomm., HI, 106, 107; P. (?., Xm, 498, foil.

6 In Mattk. Comm&ntariorum series, 85, Lomm., IV, 416, 417; P. G., XIIE,

1734, 1735: "Panis iste quern Deus Verbum corpus suum esse fatetur verbttm

est autiitorium animarum . . . et potus iste quern Deus Verbum sanguiaemsuuni fatetur verbum est potans et inebriaas . . , Non enim panem ilium visi-

19


Nevertheless our author regards the Eucharistic sacrifice as. a

true sacrifice, and speaks of Christian altars as not overflow-

ing with the hlood of animals, but as consecrated by the pre-cious blood of Jesus Christ: "pretioso sanguine Christi con-

secrari."1

We have still to treat of Origen's eschatology. This is oneof the parts of his doctrine, as all know, for which he has beenmost criticized and his memory most charged with anathemas;hence the need to study it closely.

For Origen, the future life is nothing else than "the ever-

lasting Gospel," viz., the full revelation, the full light.2 The

just are the first for whom such a life is destined. However,when they die, they do not generally go straight to Heaven.

They repair to Paradise, that is, to a subterranean place, "in

quodam eruditionisloco," where their purification is perfected

by means of a bapitsm of fire.3

Though all come to this bap-tism, all do not suffer equally therefrom, and if there weresome who should have nothing to expiate, and were perfect,

they would pass through it without suffering.4 Thus bap-

tized, the just rise from sphere to sphere, always becomingpurer and more enlightened as regards the secrets of nature andthe mysteries of God, until they are united to Christ.5

Origen condemns Millenarianism and sets aside metem-

bflem, quern tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat Deus Verbum, sedverbum in cuius mysterio fuerat panis ille frangendus. Nee potum ilium visi-

bilem sanguinem suum dicebat, sed verbum in cuius mysterio potus ille fuerateffundendus. Nam corpus Dei Verbi aut sanguis quid aliud esse potest nisiverbum quod nutrit et verbum quod laetificat cor?"

1 In Librum Jesu Nave, II, i; VHI, 6; X, 3; In Judices, III, 2, Lomm., XI,237; P. 6?., XII, 962, 963.

* De princip., IV, 25; In Rom., I, 4, Lomm., VI, 20; P. G., XIV, 847.8 De princip., H, n, 6; In Luc., horn. XXIV.* In Psalm. XXXVI, horn, m, i, Lomm., XII, 181, 182; In Levit., K,

8; In Luc., horn. XIV, Lomm., V, 136. It need scarcely be said that this doc-trine is, at bottom, the very doctrine of Purgatory.t *De principal!, n, 6, 7.

psychosis.1 In a passage of the De principiis, he seems to

doubt whether or not the elect in Heaven will have bodies.2

However, elsewhere and most of the time, he teaches the res-

urrection of the body. For there is in our bodies, he observes,

an insifa ratio, a reproductive germ which will develop in death,

and give rise to a new body, the resuscitated body, no longer

animal and corruptible, but incorruptible and spiritual.3

Though this new body has in common with the former

nothing, as we see, except the germ whence it develops,

yet, according to our author, it will be the same as the

former.4 Moreover, it will be endowed with qualities that

will vary according to the deserts of each individual.5

As to the wicked, they will undergo the chastisement of fire,

though not a fire prepared beforehand and common to all.

The fire that will eat them up will be fitted for each one of themand arise from their very sins, from the remorse they will feel

for them, much the same as the fire of fever arises from the

bad humors accumulated in the organism.6 Shall these tor-

ments be everlasting? An important question on which

Origen now and then hesitates to give his opinion.7 In the De

principiis) I, 6, 3, he dares not affirm that all the wicked

angels shall, sooner or later, come back to God; again, in his

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, he writes that, un-

like the Jews, Lucifer shall not be converted, even at the end

of time.8But, with these exceptions, in his works, as a general

1 De princip., BE, n, 2, 3; Contra Cels., Vin, 30; In Rom., V, i, Lonun.,

VI, 336; P. G., XIV, 1010.2 De princip., Ill, 6, i, St. Jerome's translation; cf. II, 3, 7.8 De princip., II, 10, 3; m, 6, 4.4 De princip., HE, 6, 6.

6 De princip., H, 10, 3.6 De princip., TL, 10, 4.7 In Joan., XXVHI, 7, Lomm., H, 325, 326; P. G., XIV, 697; In Jerem.,

horn. XVm, 15, Lomm., XV, 353, 354; P. G., XIH, 497, 500.8 LomnL, VH, 247; JP, <?., XIV, 1185,


rule, Origen teaches the ano/cardo-rao-is, the final restoration

of all intelligent creatures to God's friendship. True, all shall

not enjoy the same degree of happiness there are various

mansions in the Father's house,1 but all shall get a share of

it. The Scriptures, he observes, far from opposing this view,2

on the contrary uphold it,3 If sometimes they seem to set

forth the chastisement of the wicked as everlasting, it is to

frighten sinners, to bring them back to the right path; and

with some attention, we can find out the true meaning of the

Biblical texts.4 Then also, we must lay down as a principle that

God chastises only to correct, and that, in His greatest wrath,

He intends nothing but the amendment of the guilty. Like the

physician who uses iron and fire to cure inveterate diseases,

God uses the fire of hell to cure the unrepentant sinner: "Ex

quo utique intelligitur quod furor vindictae Dei ad purgationem

proficit animarum, , . . Ea poena quae per ignem inferni

dicitur pro adiutorio intelligitur adhiberi." 5 All souls of menand other intelligent beings, that have left the path of right-

eousness, sooner or later will become again God's friends.

True, for some this change will demand a long time, a very

long time: yet, a time shall come when God is to be all in all.

The last enemy, Death, shall be done away with; the body,made spiritual; the material world, transformed, and there

will be in the universe nothing but peace and concord.6

1 In Libfum Jesu Nave, XXV, 4; In Numeros, XXI, i; In Luc., horn. HI;horn. XVH, Lomm., V, 151; P. G.,Xm, 1847; In Lew*., horn. XIV, 3, Lomm.,IX, 415; -P. G -, 555; In Matih., X, 3.

2 In Exod.y horn. VI, 13; De princip., II, 3, 5. Origen thought that the ex-

pression "in saecula saeculorum" might designate a limited duration.8 The list of the Biblical texts appealed to by Origen may be found in HUET,

Origeniana, lib. IE, qu. n, number 20 (Lomm., XXIH, 203, f.; P. G., XVII,1030) and in BIGG, The Christian Platonists, p. 230, note i.

* Contra Cels., V, 15; cf. VI, 72.5 De printip., H, 10, 6; Contra Cels., V, 15.e "In hunc ergo statum omnem hanc nostram substantiam corporalem pu-

tandum est perducendam, tune cum omnia restituentur ut unum sint, et cum.


Shall this state at least be definitive, and the free will of

creatures rest in it forever from its tunnoils? Logically, since

the exercise of this free will still remains, such is not the case:

a falling off is still possible. This is the charge brought by St.

Jerome against Origen's system:l a charge based on a text

of the De principiis, in which the latter represents humansouls as capable of passing on indefinitely from good to evil

and from evil to good.2

However, Origen affirms elsewhere

that, by the will of God, the will of creatures will be fixed in

the good, and that this last state shall not be changed: "In

quo statu etiam permanere semper et immutabiliter Creatoris

voluntate est credendum, fidem rei faciente sententia apostoli

dicentis: Domum habemus non manu factain aeternam in

caelis."8

Such is, in brief, Origen's theological system. Built on ex-

cellent premises, within the limits of which, however, its au-

thor's powerful mind did not keep itself, it presents, together

with deep and correct views, some rash conjectures and unac-

ceptable assertions. It resembles an overflowing river which

rolls in its abundant waters at the same time the alluvium

which brings fruitfulness and the sand which renders the

ground sterile. But whether productive of good or of evil, the

great Alexandrian Doctor's influence was felt, in a direct or

Deus fuerit omnia in omnibus. Quod tamen non ad subitum fieri, sed paulatimet per partes intelligendum est, infinitis et immensis labentibus saeculis, cumsensim et per singulos emendatio fuerit et correctio prosecuta, praecurrentibus

aliis, et velociori cursu ad sumina tendentibus, aliis vero proximo quoque spatio

insequentibus, turn deinde a.1iis longe posterius, et sic per multos et innumeros

ordines proncientium, ac Deo se ex inunicis recondliantium, pervenitur usquead novissimum inimicum qui dicitur mors ut etiam ipse destruatur, nee ultra

sit inimicus. Cum ergo restitutae fuerint omnes rationabiles animae in hu-

iusmodi statum, tune natura etiam huius corporis nostri in spiritualis corporis

gloriam perducetur" (De prmcip., HE, 6, 6; 1, 6, 4).1Epist. ad A-oitum, 3 (P. L., XXII, 1061).

2 De princip., HI, i, 21; HI, 6, 5, St Jerome's translation,8 De prindp., HI, 6, 6,


indirect way, by almost all the theologians of olden times until

St. Augustine in the West, and even till a later period in the

East; they accepted his principles, and often did nothing but

develop his ideas; nay, those who opposed him, used the very

arms with which he supplied them. As it suffices to comparehis doctrinal synthesis with that of Irenaeus to realize the ad-

vance he shows in regard to his predecessor, so also it would

suffice to compare it with the syntheses and these merely

partial that were attempted afterwards, to realize how much

they owe to it. Athanasius and the Cappadocians found in

Origen proofs in behalf of consubstantiality; the Eusebians too

found in his works proofs in behalf of subordinationism.

Apollinaris was refuted beforehand by the great scholar's

emphatic assertion of a free soul in Jesus Christ. On the other

hand, Greek Theology never defined so strictly as Latin

Theology did, the theory of the Redeemer's satisfaction, which

Origen had neglected. His views on the preexistence of souls,

the spirituality of the resurrected bodies, and the apocatastasis

raised in later times conflicts from which his memory has suf-

fered; and yet, at the end of the fourth century, these views

were very near getting the upper hand. Thus, received or dis-

cussed, condemned or followed, Origen has remained the true

founder of scientific Theology. The Eastern Church has never

produced a bolder theological explorer or rather pioneer, nor

a more stimulating sower of ideas.

CHAPTER

THE CHRISTOLOGICAL AND TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES IN

THE WEST AT THE END OF THE SECOND AND AT THE BE-

GINNING OF THE THIRD CENTURY

CHRISTIANITY considered the unity of God a fundamental

dogma, and its doctors had to lay stress on this doctrine

against the more or less explicit dualism of Gnosis. On the

other hand, it admitted as equally certain the divinity of JesusChrist. There seemed to be a contradiction between these

two beliefs, a contradiction which could not fail to attract

soon the attention of Theologians. How could they reconcile

the faith in one only God with the faith of the Redeemer's

divinity? How confess one only God, if the Word, which, ac-

cording tb St. Justin's emphatic statement, was ere/w aptOftpin regard to the Father, is also God?

This difficulty had been soon noticed, and, as we have seen,

the Apologists had endeavored to solve it by remarking that

the presence of the divine nature in the Son is the result, not

of a division, but of a communication and distribution. Other

doctors, mentioned by St. Justin (Dial, 128), had adopted a

different solution. They taught that the Word was merelya power (Swa/ws) of God, inseparable from the latter, as

light is from the sun; that God, according to His will,1 held out

of or drew to Himself this power, which received various

names: angel, glory, man, logos, according to the shape it

t, ml, &rw jSotfXijrew, irtfXa' dwwT&Xei els ubrbv.


assumed or the functions considered in it. Were these doctors

Christians, or were they, as Otto thinks/ Alexandrian Jews?We cannot say. Anyhow, St. Justin sets aside their explana-

tion, as placing between the Father and the Word only a

nominal distinction; and one cannot help being struck with the

analogy it offers with some Sabellian systems of the fourth

century. However, the very same explanation was taken upagain, less than fifty years after St. Justin, this time, in re-

action against another error which had preceded it: the

denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

In regard to this subject, there has been in Ecclesiastical

History and especially in the history of Dogma, a confusion

which we must dear away in a few words.

Some have thought that these two errors, the denial of the

divinity of Jesus and Patripassianism or Modalism, had,

both, arisen from the desire to preserve the divine unity or mon-

archy? and to both the name of Monarchianism has been given.

Then, to distinguish them, the former has been styled dynamic

Monarchianism, because it admitted, as present in Jesus

Christ, only the power, the grace (Sw/ajas), and not the veryessence (oixrla) of God; while the latter was called patri-

passian, because it ascribed to God in general, or especially to

the Father, the sufferings of Jesus Christ. Now, the secondof these appellations is historically correct and acknowledged

by those who lived when the doctrine arose. On the other

hand, they never thought of giving the name of monarchian-ism to the heresy of Theodotus and Artemon; above all

and this is more important, we read nowhere that Theodo-tus and Artemon were led to deny Christ's divinity, by thedesire to preserve the divine unity and monarchy. True, this

strict monarchy resulted from their system; but the latter

did not arise from the former, and therefore to designate it by1 Note 4, ad loc. cti.

f Novatiaa seems to confirm this view (De TrimtaU, 30).

CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES 287

the name of Monarchianism, does not seem quite appropriate.1

Harnack lias suggested to designate it Adoptianism. This is

the doctrine which makes Jesus Christ, not the Son by nature,

but the adopted Son of God, by grace. We believe this appel-lation is more correct and we will use it in our studies.2

i. Adoptianism.

Adoptianism appeared successively in two centres distant

one from the other: in Rome, at the end of the second century,and in Antioch, about the years 260-270. These two manifes-

tations are connected by the name of Artemon, and besides,

the latter of them has joined, by the place where it arose,

Adoptianism with Arianism. We shall speak later on of Adop-tianism at Antioch, and treat in this paragraph exclusively of

Roman Adoptianism.Its first author was a wealthy currier of Byzantium, named

Theodotus,8 who had received a fine education and was a well-

read man. Having denied his faith during a persecution, he

came to Rome to hide his shame; but there he was found out

and, in order to clear himself, pleaded as an excuse that, after

all, in denying Jesus Christ, he had not denied God, but

only a man.4Being urged to explain what he meant, he de-

veloped his doctrine and endeavored to rest it on Biblical

1 The heresy of Theodotus is not a Trinitarian, but a Christological heresy,and thus differs from that of Noetus.

2True, it has the drawback of designating already a Spanish heresy of the

eighth century: but the confusion can be easily avoided, and, since a distinc-

tion has to be made, the present distinction, at any rate, will bear on an exact

term.3Special* sources: Pkttosopkoumena, VTI, 35; X, 23; IX, 3, 12; X, 27.

The treatise against Artemon, quoted by EUSEBITJS, H. E., V, 28. ST. HTPPO-

LYTUS, Contra Noettw, 3, 4. PHOASTRIUS, 50. ST. EHPHANHTS, Haer. LIV.

PSEtmO-TERTTJIXIAN, 2.

4 ed? && ofaviffdMr dXX&eb03ttTo*n<rdMy pIFHAN.,Haer,LIV ? l).


texts of which St. Epiphanius has left us the list and the com-

mentary. This doctrine is most simple, and we find it recorded

substantially in the same way by our various sources. Ac-

cording to the Philosophoumena (VII, 35), Theodotus ad-

mitted the teaching of the Church as regards creation. But

Jesus, he thought, was a mere man, born of a Virgin, who had

lived more religiously (eva-epec-raTov) than His fellowmen. At

His baptism in the Jordan, the Christ had come down uponHim under the form of a dove, and imparted to Him the powers

(SfoapeK) He needed to fulfil His mission. This is why, be-

fore that time, no miracles are mentioned in His life. That

descent of the Christ, who is thus identified with the Holy

Ghost, had not made Jesus God, absolutely speaking: though,

according to some Theodotians, He had become such after His

resurrection.

About the year 190, Theodotus was excommunicated byPope Victor. Nevertheless, he succeeded in keeping up his

party, nay in organizing at Rome a schismatic community.As it was recruited from a narrow circle of literary and learned

men, it resembled more a school than a Church. Studies were

quite in honor among them, but with a marked rationalistic

and positivist tendency, though this comes, it must be con-

fessed, from adversaries. Euclid, Aristotle, Theophrastus-,

Galen, logicians, geometers, physicians were the favorite

authors. The method drawn from their works was then ap-

plied to the explanation of Holy Writ. The heretics cared

little about interpreting the latter in harmony with the tra-

dition and teaching of the Church: but they did csixe muchabout settling accurately the Biblical text and restoring the

copies of Holy Writ to the primitive correctness: a point in

which they did not always come to an understanding. Their

exegesis was exclusively grammatical and literal: it amounted

merely to the conjunctive and disjunctive syllogisms thatcould be drawn from this or that passage.


The treatise against Artemon, where we find these details,

mentions particularly, among the Theodotians that excelled in

these exercises, Asclepias or Asclepiodotus, Hermophilus and

Apollonius, to whom we must join probably a certain Nata-

lius, who was, for some time under Zephyrinus, the episcopalleader of the schism. Still, of all the followers of the currier,

the best known is another Theodotus, called the banker, whofounded the special sect of the Melchizedekians.1

He shared his master's erroneous opinion as to the person of

Jesus; and besides, he added strange speculations in regard to

to Melchizedek. The latter was greater than Jesus : he was the

greatest power (StW/uv TWO, /jLey&TTrjv),"the heavenly power of

the chief grace," the mediator between God and the Angels,and also, as St. Epiphanius relates (Haer. LV, 8), between

God and us (elaajcoyea), spiritual and Son of God (irvevfAaTL/cbs

KOI vto? 0eoS). This is why we should present our offerings

to him, that he may, in his turn, present them for us, and

that, through him, we may obtain life. It is difficult to saywhat was the exact bearing of these expressions. Still, we

may observe that the older Theodotus seems to have identified

the Christ with the Holy Ghost; on the other hand, we see

here Melchizedek called no doubt in allusion to the Epistle

to the Hebrews (f) Son of God. Now, St. Epiphanius

(Haer. LV, 5, 7) tells us that, a few years later, Melchizedek

was identified by an Egyptian, Hieracas, with the Holy Ghost,

and by some Christians with the Son of God who they thoughthad appeared to Abraham. Here then we find strange nuscon-

ceptions which it suffices to point out.

The last representative of Western Adoptianism was

Artemon or Artemas. All that is known about him is drawn

from the treatise against his system, quoted by Eusebius (H.

1Special sources: Philosophoimena, VIC, 36; X, 24. The treatise against

Artemon, in EUSEBIUS, H. E., V, XXVm. PSETOO-XEBTDIJIAN, 24. PHILAS-

TBIUS, 52. ST. EPIPHANTUS, Haer. LV,


E., V, 28). Probably he taught at Rome about the year 235,

or even later, and is set forth by the third Council of Antioch,

held in the years 266-269, as the doctrinal ancestor of Paul of

Samosata, and moreover, as still living at that time (E. E., VII,

30, 1 6, 17)* His relations with the Theodotian school are

rather obscure. Theodotus had been condemned by PopeVictor about the year 190. But Artemon claimed that his own

doctrine had been held by the Roman Church until Zephyrinus

began to rule (202-218). How could he have made such an

assertion, had he been the mere continuator and echo of Theo-

dotus? There was probably, then, at least some slight differ-

ence between the two schools: but we do not know in what

it consisted. All that we know is that Artemon too denied the

divinity of Jesus Christ.

j 2. Patripassian Monarchianism.1

The Adoptianist error, after all, caused but little disturb-

ance in the West; it had to face a belief which was held too

strongly to be seriously shaken. Such was not the case with

Patripassianism. The struggle to which it gave rise was mo-

mentous, both on account of the conspicuous men who took

part in it, and because of the grave interests at stake. Besides,

it spread as far as the East, and raised there also important

disputes, as we shall see later on.

According to Tertullian, Praxeas is the first that brought the

Patripassian error to Rome, or rather to Africa. What Praxeas

was, we do not know at all; nay, some scholars (De Rossi,

Hagemann) have asked themselves if he was not to be iden-

tified with Epigonus or Callistus. A more probable supposi-

1 Sources: TERTULLIAN, Afaersus Praxean. ST. HEPPOLYTTJS, ConfraNoekm. Pkilosophoumena, DC, 7-12; X, 27. PSEUDO-TERTULIIAN, 25. ST,

EHPHANIUS, Haer* LVH?LXH. PHELASTKIUS, 53, 54.


tion is that, after having come to Rome under Eleutherus or

Victor (about 180-200), and enlightened Zephyrinus on the

true character of Montanism, he had passed over to Africa:

there he developed his doctrine and was confronted by Ter-

tullian who convicted him of heresy and made him sign a re-

traction. Thus we may understand why his name is unknownboth to St. Hippolytus and to the Philosophoumena.As a matter of fact, St. Hippolytus points out Noetus as the

first abettor of Monarchianism, and Smyrna, as its cradle.

Twice sent for by the presbyterium of that city, to account for

his scandalous utterances, Noetus confessed them finally andwas excommunicated. Then he opened a school which soon

began to propagate his views. These events must be placedbetween the years 180 and 200.

Epigonus brought to Rome the Patripassian doctrine under

Zephyrinus or a little earlier (about 200-210), There he

formed an independent party and found in Cleomenes a zeal-

ous disciple and valuable coworker. The latter became the

leader of the sect and remained such until the name and

person of Sabellius prevailed in it. At that time, the heresyreached its apogee, and the controversy was most intense.

All that was heard, Tertullian says,1 was the voice of people

talking of monarchy: "Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus!"

This disturbed considerably the Christian community.What was then that monarchy preached by the innovators

and what solution did they bring to the Trinitarian problem?We possess three almost identical expositions of Monarch-

ianism: those of St. Hippolytus, the Phikso$koumena and

Tertullian. The heretics are set forth as moved St. Hippo-

lytus says it most explicitly2 not only by the desire of safe-

guarding the divine unity, but also and this explains partly

their success by the purpose of upholding the full divinity

1 Adv. Praxean9 3.' Contra Noetum, i, 9,

of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately they attain that purpose by

giving up the personal distinction of the Father and of the Son

and representing them as the two aspects of one same per-

son.

This last point constitutes the fundamental article of the

system: "Duos unum volunt esse ut idem pater et filius

habeatur." * The Word does not exist by Himself: He is noth-

ing but another name of the Father, a flatus wcis, "vox et

sonusoris . . . aeroffensus . . . caeterumnescioquid;"2

St.

John's first chapter is a mere allegory: 'l&>dvv^ p,ev y&p \fyei

\dyov, dXX' aXXox? a\\y<yopel? In reality, it is the Father whocame down into the Virgin's bosom, was born, and, by being

born, became Son, His own Son, proceeding from Himself.4

He it is who suffered and died (patripassianism) ;who raised

Himself from the dead,5 thus presenting attributes apparently

contradictory, according as we consider Him in this or that

state: unseen and seen, unknowable and knowable, uncreated

and created, everlasting and mortal, unbegotten and begotten.6

Thus understood, the theory is most simple. Yet, when con-

fronted with the texts that state the real distinction of the

Father and of the Son, the Medalists could not help endeav-

oring to explain them while preserving at the same time the

substance of their own teaching. This they did by declaringthat in Jesus Christ, the flesh, the man, Jesus, is the Son, while

the Divine element joined to the flesh, the Christ is the Father:

"ut aeque in una persona utrumque distinguant patrem et

filium, dicentes filinm carnem esse, id est hominem, id est

1 Adv. Praxean, 5; Philosophy IX, 10.2 Adv. Praxean, 7.8 Contra Noefam, 15.*Pkilosoph., X, 10; X, 27; Adv. Praxean, 10: "Ipse se sibi filium fecit;"

u; cf. r, 2.

6 Contra Noetum, 1,3; Philosophy DC, 10; Adv. Praxean, i: "Ipsum dicit

patrem . . . passum;"

2: "Post tempus pater natus et pater passus;"

13.ePhilosophy IX, IQJ Adv. Praxean, 14, 15.


Jesum, patrem autem spiritum, id est deum, id est Christum." 1

Hence the following formula which grated so much on Tertul-

lian: "Filius sic quidem patitur, pater vero compatitur."2

Such is the Patripassian or Modalistic error taught in Rome

by the Monarchians during the first quarter of the third cen-

tury. Until the discovery of the Pkilosopkoumena, scholars

thought that Sabellius himself had lived later, and that his

system differed somewhat from the one we have just exposed.

This is not the case. The author of the Philosophoumena, whoknew him and had met him often, makes him a contemporary of

Zephyrinus and Callistus, and does not speak of any disa-

greement between his teaching and that of Cleomenes. But,

as the Sabellian sect held its ground in the Church until the

middle of the fifth century, some changes gradually took

place which brought the doctrine to a more complex and

learned form. It is under this form that Sabellianism is set

forth in the refutations of it that were made in the fourth cen-

tury, in reference to the case of Marcellus of Ancyra, by Euse-

bius, St. Athanasius and St. Hilary. Though it is not the

primitive form, still it is manifestly derived from it.

The system itself which is well exposed by Mgr. Duchesne,3

will come again under our consideration.

3. Opposition to Monarchianism.*

Patripassian Monarchianism had to face, in Rome, a two-

fold opposition: an intellectual opposition on the part of a

school, and an official opposition on the part of ecclesiastical

1 Adv. Praxean, 27; Philos., IX, 12 (pp. 442, 443).2 Adv. Prax., 29.8Origines Chr&tiennes, chapt. XVTH, p. 282; cf. Hist. anc. de FEgttse, vol.

I pp. 310-311 [Early Hist, of the Church, pp. 225-227].4 The works bearing on this question will be mentioned, when we speak of

St Hippolytus and the Philosophoumena.


authorities. On one hand, doctors who showed a tendency

quite contrary to that of the heresy, such as Tertullian, St.

Hippolytus, the author of the Philosophoumena, refuted with

vigor and success Praxeas, Epigonus, Cleomenes, Sabellius;

on the other hand, Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus inter-

vened in the dispute, to condemn definitively the new error.

To give in this place a detailed account of the doctrine and

argument opposed by the above-mentioned doctors to the

Patripassians would be to encroach beforehand on the exposi-

tion we shall make, a few^pages below, of their teaching.1 We

may remark, though, that, from a Trinitarian standpoint, this

teaching reproduced and scarcely improved on that of the

Apologists. The Word was fully distinguished from the

Father and became other in regard to Him, and Son, only at

the time of creation. At this particular moment, the distinc-

tion increased, and the Son apparently became inferior and

subordinate to the Father. Temporal generation and subor-

dinationism were the two shortcomings of the doctrine, other-

wise correct, which the school called Trinitarian opposed to the

affirmations of its Monarchian antagonist. To refute the

error of the latter, St. Hippolytus and his followers no doubt

inclined to the contrary error.

As to the opposition made to Monarchianism by the Church

authorities, it deserves to be carefully studied.

According to some of our documents, this opposition reallynever existed, and the bishops of Rome: Victor, Zephyrinus,and Callistus favored, nay professed heresy.This is insinuated, as to Pope Victor, by Tertullian (Ad.

Prax., i), and plainly affirmed by the author of the list of her-

esies to be found at the end of the treatise De praescriptione,the Pseudo-Tertullian, as he is commonly called: "Seel

post hos (haereticos) omnes etiam Praxeas quidam haeresim

1 Cf, the following chapter.

introduxit, quam Victorinus corroborare curavit" (25). It

would be out of place to examine at length this accusation:

Tertullian's words are rather vague; and then the charge in the

catalogue comes from an anonymous writer; besides, if the

reading Victorinus is correct, it does not designate Victor,and if it is an alteration, it may designate Zephyrinus.

1 The

Philosophoumena does not address any reproach to Victor, andwe may easily understand that, after receiving from Praxeas a

useful advice in the affair of Montanism, this Pope at first gavehim tokens of kindness and did not rebuke "Him for a heresywhich he developed probably only later on. On these various

grounds we may put aside the name and memory of Victor

from the dispute which we are going to expose.As to Zephyrinus and Callistus, the charges of the PkUoso-

fhoumena are specific. The former, it says, favored heresy.He allowed first the Christian community to go to hear the

innovators; and then he himself professed their doctrine:"*I know only one God/ he said,

'

Jesus Christ, and beside Hfmnone other, who was born and who suffered/ And he added:

'It is not the Father who died, but the Son/ which caused

among the people continual disputes,"2

For Callistus, after giving of his previous life an account at

least somewhat biased, the author of the Pkilosophoumena rep-

resents TIJTTI?on his being made the deacon of Zephyrinus,

passing from one side to the other, apparently sharing the views

of everybody, but in reality favorable to the error, misdirect-

ing particularly Sabellius, whom he gradually brought back to

Cleomenes, and treating as dithedsts the champions of ortho-

doxy.3

1 Cf. Dealer's note in his edition of Tertiillian, II, p. 265.2PMlosoph., IX, II : 'EY& oTda &a Bebr Xpurrbr'I'iiovvr, jccd x\ty erirofl (repay

otfS&a yeyrjrinf md Tfo.e-fyrQv. HOT* 5 X^yew <ri% o raTfy? (brewer, dXXA 6 wtfs,

otfrws &irav<rrar rty ordffcv fr rf Xa$ faerifp'q<r&**PMlosoph., K, iiT, 12; ST. HEPP-, Contra tfoct., 14; TE&TUIJIAN, Ado*

Prax., 3: "Duos et tres (deos) iara iactitant a nobfe praedicari."

20


Meanwhile, the same author continues,1Zephyrinus died

(217) and was replaced by Callistus. Opposed by powerful

adversaries, closely watched, and more conspicuous than ever,

the new Pope realized that he had to break with the Patri-

passians, and he condemned Sabellius. But he was not sincere

and, as Sabellius beset him with reproaches, he devised a modi-

fication of Ms former error. Then follows the exposition of that

altered Monarchiamsm a short sketch of which has been al-

ready given,2 and which Mgr. Duchesne reduces to the fol-

lowing points:3

"(i) Outside the Incarnation, the difference

between the Father and the Son is merely nominal. (2) TheIncarnation is the reason of the real difference : in Jesus Christ,

the Son is the visible and human element; the Father, the in-

visible and divine element. (3) The union of these two ele-

ments, though so dose that we may affirm that they form onlyone being, is not so close that we may affirm that the Father,

viz., the divine element, suffered; He merely sympathizedwith the Son."

These accusations against Zephyrinus and Callistus rest,

let it be observed, on the exclusive authority of the Philoso-

phoumena, and the antipope, the author of this work, had

strong reasons to dislike both Zephyrinus who had exalted

Callistus, and especially Callistus who was regarded as the

lawful Pope. Besides, the formulas with which the former

is reproached are too little explicit to be qualified with any-

thing like accuracy: taken in themselves, they are orthodox,and the second rejects formally Patripassianism.

4

As to Callistus, two things are certain: he treated of ditheists

1DC, ii, 12.

2 Cf, above, pp. 292-293.*Origines Chrttiennes, p. 286. Cf. also Hist. anc. de I'Egtise, vol. I, p. 314

[Early Hist, of the Church, p. 228],4 We should remark that, as a matter of fact, the PMlosophotmena does nol

charge Zephyrinus with upholding Monarchianism in its modified form: this

modification was made only later on.


the followers of the Trinitarian school and he condemned

Sabellius: but he only rebuked the former and showed themthe ultimate term of the tendency a tendency which explains

why at first he turned Sabellius away from them; while,

afterwards, he explicitly condemned the latter. Did he do so bymere policy and did he really uphold the system ascribed to

him by the Philosophoumena? It is quite strange that Ter-

tullian, who disliked Callistus and who addresses him manyreproaches, does not charge Mm with such a misdeed. Thewitness of the author of the Philosophoumena is isolated and

moreover is that of a personal enemy. It is confirmed by no

vestige of any modalistic teaching whatever, that might have

remained in the Roman doctrine of that time. This being the

case, it cannot be accepted as the expression of simple and

genuine truth. Until further historical researches are made,Callistus must at present, to judge exclusively by the facts, be

regarded as orthodox.

After its condemnation, Monarchianism does not seem to

have counted many followers in Rome and in the West. How-

ever, St. Epiphanius (Haer. LXH, i) tells us that there were

Sabellians at Rome in his time, and Marangoni discovered, in

the year 1742, near the cubiculum of St. Callistus, an inscription

which apparently indicated that, in the fourth century or ear-

lier, there was in the same spot a burial-ground for the heretics.1

On the other hand Commodian's poems contain several verses

of a decided modalistic tendency. But these few facts are

mere exceptions to a general situation. It is chiefly in the

East and in Egypt that Sabellianism continued to subsist.

1 The inscription in mosaic, accompanied by the Constantinian monogram,stood near a painting representing Christ between St. Peter and St. Paul. It

read: Qui etflius diceris et pater inveniris. This inscription is lost and there

is no reproduction of it

CHAPTER IX

THE FOUNDERS OF LATIN THEOLOGY ST. BCEPPOLYTUS, TER-

TULLIAK, NOVATIAN

z. St. Hippolytus.1 The Philosophoumena.

WHILE in the East Theology soared to wonderful heights

in the works of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, it was

worked out also in the West in writings of less expansion and

of a more limited horizon, yet composed in a remarkably strongand fixed language. As we have seen, St. Irenseus had givento that Theology its doctrinal foundation and, as it were, the

spirit with which it was to be inspired: in the period of which

we are going to treat, Tertullian fixed its formulas and Nova-tian wrote its first textbook.

As to St. Hippolytus, he is known chiefly as an exegete.

His commentaries on Holy Writ were the first that the Churchever read, and they have deserved to be preferred to those of

1 The edition quoted for the Contra Noetum is that of FABRICIUS in P. G., X;for the other works, those of G. N. BONWETSCH and H. ACHEIIS in the Die

griechischen Schriftstetter, Leipsic, 1897. Works: C. J. BTJNSEN, Hippolytus andhis Age, London, 1852, 2nd edit, 1854. C. WORDSWORTH, St. Hippolytus andthe Church of Rome in the early part of the third century, London, 1853, 2nd edit.,1880, J. DOLUNGER, Hippolytus und Kattistus, Ratisbon, 1853; English trans-

lation, by A. PLTJMMER, Edinburgh, 1876. L. ATZBERGER, Geschichte der christ-

Uchen Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit, Friburg in Brisgau, 1896,pp. 271-290. G. N. BONWETSCH, Studien zu den Kommentaren Hippolyts zumB&ch Daniel und HohenUede, Leipsic, 1897. H. ACHEUS, Hippolytsfadien, Leip-sic, 1897. J. SJOHOLM, Hippolytus och modalismen, Lund, 1899. P. FLOHRNOY,Searchlight of St. Hippolytus, London, 1900. K. J. NEUMANN, Hippolytus vonRom in seiner Striking zu Stoat und Welt, Leipsic, 1902.

ST. HIPPOLYTUS 299

Origen, not indeed for genius and learning, but for the sound-

ness of the principles of exegesis which inspired their compo-sition. Viewed as a theologian, he can be judged only imper-

fectly. Most of his didactic and polemical writings are lost.

Written in Greek, they exercised no influence on the forma-

tion of the Latin theological language. But in their substance

and method, they marked a real progress in the development of

Christian thought. They place their author half-way, as it

were, between St. Irenseus and Tertullian. Less precise and

vigorous than the latter, he seems to be more progressive and

less subservient to the letter than the Bishop of Lyons.It is in his controversy with the Modalists and after refuting

their errors, that St. Hippolytus exposes his own thoughts on

the relations of the Father and the Son in the Trinity, and

this he does chiefly in the loth and nth chapters of his treatise

against Noetus. In the beginning, he tells us, the Father was

alone; however, though being alone, He was manifold (pdvo$

($v 7roXv9 fyv)j for He was not without word and wisdom (owe

yap akoyo? ovre a<ro(f)o<i). When then He would create the

world, He caused His Word to appear (efage rov Tutyov avrov);

He brought It outside, that Itmight betheinstrument (epy&njv)

of creation. This production is a generation (ycw&v); in

what it consists exactly, the author is unable to explain; never-

theless, he strongly maintains its existence: the Word is not

created, but begotten.1

Thus, he continues, there was some one other than the

Father- (fcal OVTW irapurrarQ avr<j> ere/w) : although we can-

not speak of two Gods, for the Word is "a light produced

by a light, a stream of water welling up from a spring, a ray

Bursting from the sun. . . . The Word is the intelligence

(vovs) which, appearing in the world, manifested itself as Son

rf God." 2

The Word, begotten by God, is His Son; yet, according to

^ xoj cf, 16. * Contra Notom> n; cf. 10,


St. Hippolytus, this sonship becomes perfect only through the

Incarnation. For, although he sets forth the Word as povo-

7^9, he declares that, when God called Him His Son, it

was by prolepsis, and because the Word was to become such

one day (.. . rov \6yov ov vibv irpoa-yyopeve $i& TO peXkeiv

avrov yevea-Oai): "Without the flesh and considered apart, byHimself, the Word was not fully Son, though, as (jLovoyevfa, Hewas fully Word/'

r

We need not insist to show that the previous exposition

contains the Trinitarian system of the Apologists, and par-

ticularly the doctrine of the temporal generation of the Logos.The latter, first insufficiently distinct from the Father, pro-

ceeds from Him at a determined moment viz., when the

Father wishes it, to be the immediate agent of creation;

still, He proceeds from Him by way of generation and bycommunication of the divine substance.

There are but few traces of Subordinationism in St. Hippo-

lytus.2 On the other hand, some scholars (Duchesne, Har-

nack) have charged him with not having regarded the HolySpirit as a person strictly so called. For he reckons in God

Trpdo'coira Svo, ol/cova)/J,tq$e rpCr^vrrjv xdpw rov arykv TTveupaTO??

The Holy Ghost, then, is not for Him a TTpoo-airov. True,our author does not give Him explicitly this name: but wemust remember that the object of the controversy between

Trinitarians and Modalists was merely the nature of the dis-

tinction between the Father and the Son: the Holy Spirit did

not come into the dispute, and the need was not yet felt to state

with precision the Christian doctrine in reference to Him.Hence St. Hippolytus contented himself with speaking of

Him as a third numerical term whose presence completed the

1 Contra Noet., 15: Otire yfy foapicos Kcd Ko,0' favrbv 6 \&yos r&eiot fy utos,KcdroL r^Xetos Xdyos &v, fjM

a Contra Noet., 6, 14.9 Contra Noet., 14,

ST. HIPPOLYTUS 301

trinity (rpifa).1

Besides, he ascribes to Him the divine nature

just as lie does to the Father and to the Son.2

Meanwhile, the Word, at first a<rap/cos, became for us a true

man, assuming a rational soul tyv<xyv avffpaTrivrjv, \oyc/cr)v

Se Xeyco), and also our infirmities and passions.3 This in-

carnation did not consist in a transformation of the Word into

the man (ov Kara rpoTnJz/); the duality of the divine andhuman elements is emphatically maintained,

4 but their union

is close ((Tvyfcepdc-a?) plgas): the same person is both Godand man;

5 in Jesus Christ, the flesh could not subsist apart, in

itself, since it subsisted in the Word. 6 The i8th chapter of the

Contra Noetum offers us a precise summary of this doctrine on

the unity of person and the duality of natures in the Redeemer.

The Word became thus incarnate to save us all, to set us

free through His obedience. 7 A disciple of St. Irenseus, St. Hip-

polytus sees in the Incarnation the very beginning of our

regeneration. Jesus Christ is the new man: 8 He reshaped,in His own person, the old Adam (avairKdacr^v Si* eavrov rov3

ASa/*).9

However, our doctor is not ignorant of the part

played in that work by the Saviour's death : by dying, the latter

has conquered death;10 and the result of this victory has been

for us incorruptibility (a$0apcr(a).n

The Church is, precisely, the assembly of those who strive

to become worthy, by their efforts, of this everlasting life and

1 Contra Noet., 8, 14.

Contra Noet,, 8, 12.

Contra Noel., 17, iS.

Contra Noet., 17.

De Christo et Anticfoisto, 4, 26; Contra Noet., 6, 13, 14, I7 *8.

Contra Noet., 15: Otf0J

-^ <rdp|- jra

De Christo et Antichristo, 3, 4; Contra Noet., 17.8 Contra Noet., 17.9 De Ckristo et Antickristo, 26; cf, 44; 1% Damelem, IV, n, 5.10 De Christo et Avtichristo, 26.

Contra Noet., 17, i&


who live in Justice. She is the /c\ijcri$ T&V wyfovl To belongto the Church, one must not only have faith, but also observe

God's precepts.2

St. Hippolytus mentions quite frequently Baptism, and the

remission of sins which results from it;8 likewise he mentions

Confirmation,4 and apparently sees in the Eucharist the body

and blood of Jesus Christ.5 At any rate, he speaks of the

sacrifice offered in every place and among all nations.

Side by side with the Trinitarian doctrine, St. Hippolytusalso treats of eschatology at length. His teaching, however,sometimes lacks clearness and consistency. He seems to admit

a judgment for every man immediately after death,6 and re-

gards the Prophets, Martyrs and Apostles as already reigning

with Christ.7 The wicked, he says elsewhere, shall undergothe punishment of fire, and this punishment shall be ever-

lasting.8 When it is to begin, is not clearly stated. Anyhow,

the end of the world shall soon come : the author does not placeit later than two or three hundred years, for according to a

calculation already ancient the world is to last 6000 years

(6 days of 1000 years each), and Jesus Christ was born in the

year 5,500. Then the seventh day shall follow, that is, the

Sabbath during which the Saints will reign with Jesus Christ.9

Will this 7th day last only 1000 years, like the others? St.

EBppolytus does not give here an expUdt.affirmative answer;10

1 In Daniel., 1, 17, 5-7; 1, 14, 5.1 In Daniel., I, 17, 14; cf. IV, 38, 2.

1 In Daniel., 1, 16, 2, 3; IV, 36, 4; De Christo et Antickr., 59.4 In Daniel., 1, 16, 3; De Christ et Antickr., 59.6 In Genesim, XLDC, 20, and XXXVUI, 19, edit. H. Achelis, pp. 66, 96.

St. Jerome tells us (Ejist. LXXI, 6) that St. Hippolytus had written "DeEucharistia an accipienda quotidie."

6 In Daniel, IV, 18, 7. *

7 De Christo et Antichr., 30, 31, 59,In Proverb., XI, 30; De Christo et Antichr., 5; In Daniel., IV, 10, 3; IV,

12, i, etc.

* In Daniel., IV, chapt. 23 and 24.

ST. HIPPOLYTUS 303

nay, he seems to deny it emphatically in the Capita adversus

Caium. Hence it cannot be affirmed unhesitatingly that he

is a Millenarian. As to the lengthy researches he made aboutthe circumstances of the last days, circumstances which hedescribes in his De Christo et Antickristo, they present but Httle

originality. He follows step by step the Biblical texts that

may enlighten him and endeavors to hold, in their inter-

pretation, the golden mean between a narrow literalism and an

arbitrary allegorism.

With St. Hippolytus we may join, if not identify, the author

of the Philosophoumena,1 bis contemporary and his ally in the

struggle against Patripassianism. The Trinitarian system,set forth in the work before us (X, 32, 33) reproduces substan-

tially that of the holy Doctor. At first, God is alone; nothingis coeternal with Him, but He begets by thought His Word

(\6yov TTp&rov evvoyQels airo^evva). The world is ef oiSeuo?,

and therefore is not God: while the Word is from God, and is

the only one that is from God, and therefore He is God, God's

essence (TOVTOU o Xo'<yo9 fidvos e avrov [Oeov] SLO xal 0eb? ova-fa

vjrdpx&v deov). True, the author advances the strange idea

that, had God wished to mate man God (deov (re TTOI^OW), Hemight have done so; and he adds: "This is proved to you bythe example of the Word." Nevertheless, he manifestly estab-

lishes a difference between the Word and the other beings.

The former is begotten (eyevva, yeyewytcoTos) ;the latter are

created.

It is precisely for this creation that the Word is produced.This is why He bears in Himself the ideas and will of the

Father, and, at His command, brings the world into reality

in keeping with these ideas and in harmony with that will.

The Father commands and the Logos obeys,

1Although this identity is granted by most scholars, yet it may be better to

treat apart the doctrine of the PJt&950ph(nmen&. The edition quoted is that of

P. CEOICS;, Phiksopfawmew, svoe hoeresium omnium confutafa, Paris, 1860.

Works: The same as for St. Hippolytus.


The rest of the doctrine offers nothing original, except the

thought at the end. The Word took our nature from a virgin

([e/c]rov /ca9

9

97/^9 fapdfjLaros} ,that He might rightly require

our submission and stand before us as a model. He subjected

Himself to our needs and weaknesses (X, 33), and brought to

us regeneration together with the remission of sins (X, 34, p.

524). As regards man, created free, he is the author of evil

(X, 33, pp. 518, 519, 521); and will be punished for it. Hell

everlasting, with its darkness, fire and never-dying worm, will

chastise the wicked (X, 9, 34, pp. 522, 523). On the contrary,

the just that shall do good will be rewarded by the dose

friendship of God, the immortality of the body and of the

soul (aQavao-Ca, a^Oapo-ia): nay, they will become like to

God, since He has created us for this very purpose: ov yap

irr&xeuei, 0eo? [6] ical ere debv iroirja-a? el$ Bd%av avrov (X, 34),

2. Tertullian.i

To Tertullian the title of founder of Theology in the West,which we have inscribed at the beginning of this chapter, be-

1 The edition quoted is that of FR. (EELER, Q. S. F. TertulUani quae super-sunt omnia, Leipsic, 1853-1854. Works: E. NOEUDECHEN, TertMan, Gotha,

1890. P. MONCEAUX, Histoire Utteraire de I'Afrique chretienne, I, Paris, 1904. A.

D'AiES, La Thtologie de TerhdMen, Paris, 1905. G. CATTCANAS, Tertullien et le

Montanisme, Geneva, 1876. P. A. KLAP, TertuUianus en het monttmisme^

Theolog. Studien, 1897. G. ESSES, Die Sedenlehre Tertuttians, Paderborn, 1893.G. SCHELOWSKY, D& Apologet TertuJtianusin seinem Verfatttnis zu der gnechisch-romiscken Philosophic^ Leipsic, 1901. E. F. SCHULZE, Elemente einer Theo-

dicee lei Tertullian, in the Zeitsckr. filr wissenschafil. Theologie, XLIII, 1900.M. WINKLER, Der Traditionsbegriff des Urchristentums bis Tertullian, Miinchen,1897. J. STEER, Die Gottes und Logos Lehre Tertuttians, GSttingen, 1899. J.

KOLBERG, Verfassung, Kultus und Diszipttn der christtichen Kirche nock der

Schriften Tertullians, Braunsberg, 1886. FR. S. Hwz,DieGescMchte des Messop-fer-3egriffs, I, Freising, 1901. FR. NIELSEN, TertulUans Ethik. Afhandling,Schonberg, 1879. K. H. WIRTE, Der "Verdienst" Begriff in der cfoisttichen

Kirche, I, Leipsic, 1892. CH. GUIGNEBERT, Tertuttien, etude sur ses sentiments dVegard deVempire etdela societe civile, Paris, 1901 . P. BATUTOL, VEgUse Naiss. et

le Catbolicisme, 1909, pp. 3*7-353- H. LECLERCQ, L'Afrique Chretiewte, I, Paris,1904.

TERTULLIAN 305

longs preeminently. Until the end of the second century, that

Theology had used Greek and was not distinct, in its concep-tion and exposition of Christianity, from Greek Theology, the

only Theology, in fact, existing in the Church since the Apolo-

gists. But, at this time, a separation took place: the two The-

ologies, Greek and Latin, break off, like two distinct boughs,from the parent-trunk, in which they had remained so far as

one. Henceforth, both will use their own respective tongueand betray, in some of their fundamental theories, not indeed

doctrinal divergences, but dissimilar preoccupations, charac-

teristics of presentation and intellectual tendencies. The great

author who was the first thus to impart to Latin Theology its

distinctive aspect and stamp is Tertullian.

All know the nature of his mind: rugged, vigorous, remark-

ably supple and powerful, but lacking that measure which

maintains a man in sound views and marks out practicable

courses. A philosopher he was not: he had no bent towards

speculation and he viewed Christian revelation neither as a

light which comes to expand our intellectual horizon nor as a

sum of truths that call for our investigation. But he was pre-

eminently endowed with the juridical sense. He was a lawyerwho saw in Christianity first of all a fact and a law. The fact

had to be proven and understood; the law, to be interpreted

and above all, to be kept. God is for us a master and a creditor :

we are His subjects and His debtors. Hence, to determine our

dealings with Him., viz., our religious attitude and rela-

tions in His regard, it is but just that we should apply the

principles of human legislation and carry into this application

the strictness which prevails when debts and civil rights have

to be stated with precision: a mere question of liabilities and

capital, which can be treated with the exactness of commer-

cial transactions.

This conception manifestly leaves no room, in religious faith,

for mystic intuition, for direct and intimate experience, for the


effusion of the heart and the abandon of the soul to God; and

therefore it would have completely dried up so to speak

Latin Theology, had not other influences for instance,

that of St. Augustine set right, in the fourth and in the

fifth century, what was excessive. On the other hand, it was

remarkably fitted to impart firmness and precision to theologi-

cal language, and great indeed is the service Tertullian ren-

dered to that Theology by supplying it from the very start

with an almost determined terminology, and a certain number

of definitive formulas. He truly created Latin theological

language. The first to appear, and himself a master in the

art of writing, he knew how to bend a synthetic and rebellious

idiom to new ideas, some of them quite abstract indeed. If he

was careless of its rules and constantly offended against its

purity, at least he enriched its vocabulary and enlarged its

compass. He made it convey sentiments unknown to it until

that tune, and thus rendered it capable of becoming" in the

West and for many years the means ordinarily used and every-where received, of expressing Christian faith.

So, Latin Theology depends on Tertullian to a great extent,

that is, as to forms of thought and of expression. Moreover,

nothing shows more conclusively how perfectly this concep-tion and this language agreed with the needs and tendencies of

the Western mind, than their preservation through the course

of ages and the facility with which they are understood by us

in this very day. It has been rightly remarked that, thoughhe is the most ancient of Latin Fathers, and though several

parts of his teaching betoken the early stage of Christian doc-

trine, still, when we read Tertullian, we find that we are deal-

ing almost with one of our contemporaries. His theologicalcast of mind is ours; his reasonings on dogmatic, moral and

disciplinary topics are those we ourselves would make; weenter into Ms views and share his preoccupations; we perusehis writings without the least difficulty.

TERTULLIAN 307

Such as he is, Tertullian, then, is an author who must be

studied most closely by any one who is anxious to lay hold,at their birth, of certain theories and formulas peculiar to the

Latin Church.

He had not always been a Christian, but, after his con-

version, he openly claimed the right to remain such and

boldly defended the Church against the persecutions of Pagan-ism. His Apologeticum has been already studied. The trea-

tises he wrote for the same purpose the two books Ad Na-tiones and the letter Ad Scapulam are respectively of the

years 197 and 2I2.1Passing from the defence to the attack,

Tertullian did not fail to jeer unmercifully at the criminal and

obscene deeds of Polytheism.2

Nevertheless, he pretended to

remain faithful to the State and to the Emperor: of his loyalty,

at least in intention, there is no doubt.3

His attitude towards Philosophy varied according as he saw

in it the help or the adversary of faith. Now and then, he

realizes and writes down that Philosophy agrees with Chris-

tianity as to the fundamental truths of revealed Dogma and

Moral; that some of its representatives have guessed and

known beforehand, at. least vaguely, the Logos, the Angels and

the Demons, and a few others of our beliefs:4 "Seneca saepe

noster!" 5 that the human soul is in some way naturally -pre-

pared to welcome the divine word;6 and in these cases, Ter-

tullian considers Philosophy an ally and a beneficent power.But when he notices that heresies have precisely come from the

1 Scholars disagree sometimes as to the dates of Tertullianj

s writings: I have

adopted here and all through this m>rk those suggested by P. MONCEAUX, Op.

cit., pp. 208, 209.2 For instance, Apologetic., 9, foil.

* Ad Scapulam, 2; Apologetic., 30, 33, 39.4Apologetic., 21, 22, 48.

6 De anma, 20.

6Apologetic., 17, 21*; 46-48; De $pectociMs, 2; De anima, 2; De testimonio

animae, the whole work.

3o8 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

very attempts made by their authors to combine the data of

their philosophy with those of their faith, and from their en-

deavors to bend the latter to human systems, then he gets

indignant and impatient: "Adeo quid simile philosophus et

christianus? Graeciae discipulus et coeli? famae negotiator

et vitae? . . . Amicus et inimicus erroris? veritatis inter-

polator et integrator et expressor, et furator eius et custos?" l

Heresies are the fruit of Philosophy;2

philosophers are the

"patriarchs of heretics," 3

Besides, it is not from reason or Philosophy that Tertullian

asks what he ought to believe. He asks it from the Apostolic

Churches, the mothers of all other Churches. The Son alone

knows the Father; He has imparted to the Apostles alone

the knowledge He has of the Father; to them alone He has

left His doctrine and teachings. In their turn, the Apostleshave communicated these to the Churches they founded.

These Churches, then, are the depositaries of religious truth;

and they are in the possession of truth who share their faith,

while those who do not accept their testimony are in the pathof error.

4Now, for the Africans and the faithful who dwell

near Italy, the Apostolic Mother-Church is that of Rome;so that, in order to know with precision what has to be believed,

it suffices to examine what she herself believes and what she

has taught Africa: "Si autem Italiae adiaces, habes Romamunde nobis quoque auctoritas praesto est . . . videamus quid

didicerit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoque ecdesiis con-

1Apokget., 46.

2 De praescript., 7, and cf. De ammo,, 23.8 De anima, 3.4 Si haec ita sunt constat perinde omnem doctrinam quae cum illis ecdesiis

apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, idsine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiae ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus adeo accepit; onmem vero doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam quae sapiatcontra veritatem ecclesiarum et apostolorum, Christi et dei. (De praescript.,

**, 32, 36).

TERTULLIAN 309

tesserarit."l By this appeal to the Church and to Antiquity,

Tertullian puts the heretics to silence and even forbids them to

allege Holy Writ in behalf of their doctrine. The Scriptures

belong to the Church; they are her property, not that of

heretics; these are not legally allowed to bring them forward

as a proof. Tloisisthepraescriptio: "Sihaecitasehabent . . .

constat ratio propositi nostri definientis non esse admittendos

haereticos ad ineundam de scripturis provocationem, quos sine

scripturis probamus ad scripturas non pertinere . . . Mea est

possessio, olim possideo, prior possideo, habeo origines firmas

ab ipsis auctoribus quorum fuit res. Ego sum haeres aposto-

lorum." 2

This teaching of the Mother-Churches, Tertullian finds

summed up in the Symbol the "regula fidei," the "lex fidei,"

as he says, speaking as a lawyer,3 of which he reproduces

the substance, nay the wording itself.4 This Symbol cannot

be discussed; unlike the discipline and customs that can be

modified 5it cannot be touched nor improved.

6 Even the neweffusion of the Paraclete, which began with Montanus, treated

the Symbol with due regard, although it did away with some

indulgences as to morality allowed by Jesus Christ. 7 But out-

side the domain of the Symbol, for the points in which there is

obscurity or uncertainty, our author admits researches and

conjectures.8

The fundamental object of our faith is God. Many par-

ticularly St. Augustine9 have pointed out in Tertullian's

1 De praescript.j 36.2 De praescript., 37.8 De praescripL, 13, 14; De mgimbus vekndis, i,

* De praescript.j 13; De virginib. vekmdis, i.

B De mrgimb. veland., i.

6 De virgimb. veland., i.

7 De virgimb. veland., i; De monogawfo, 14.8 De praescript., 14.

Epist. 190, IV, 14.


teaching on the nature of God this peculiarity, that he seems

to make Him a corporeal being: "Quis enim negabit deum

corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? Spiritus enim corpus sui

generis in sua effigie."1

However, in many places, and in

this very place, our author states that God is spiritual.2 Hence

the question arises: does he not admit, like the Stoics, between

the body and the spirit a mere difference of degree as regards

the subtility of the matter of which they are made up? Strictly

speaking, he may have done so; but more probably the writer

used here the word corpus as synonymous of sulstantia: the

substance, as he himself explains elsewhere, being the body

and, as it were, the solid element of the being of which it is the

basis.3

In his Trinitarian doctrine, Tertullian offers the most com-

plete expression of the teaching set up by his school against

Patripassianism at the beginning of the third century. Hehad already sketched it in the year 197 in his Apologeticum

(21) ;but he worked it up again and revised it carefully in his

Adverse Praxean written between the years 213-225 (?): in

the following exposition of his teaching, we shall consult chiefly

this last work.4

Like the Apologists, Tertullian starts that exposition with the

Father's person. In the beginning, he tells us, God is alone;

but this God has in Himself His reason, and in His reason, the

interior word which always accompanies its exercise: a wordof which God, by his intimate conversation, makes thus a

second term: "habentem in semetipso proinde rationem, et

in ratione sermonem, quern secundum a se faceret agitandointra se" (5).

1 Adv. Praxean, 7; cf. De carne Christi, 11.2 For instance, Apologet., 21.1 Adv. Hermogenem, 35.* Unless otherwise stated, the following numbers of chapters placed between

parentheses refer to the Adversus Praxean.

TERTULLIAN 311

When the moment has come to create, God utters that in-

terior word which contains His reason and ideas; and the

whole world is thereby created (6). This utterance or prola-

tion constitutes the Word's perfect birth: "haec est nativitas

perfecta sermonis" (7); for though before that, He was con-

ceived, carried in the Father's bosom ("vulva cordis") (7),

strictly speaking, He was not begotten, born. At this precise

moment, God becomes Father: which He was not until then:

"Quia et pater Deus est, et iudex Deus est, non ideo tamen

pater et iudex semper quia Deus semper. Nam nee pater po-tuit esse ante filium, nee iudex ante delictum. Fuit autem

tempus cum et delictum et filius non fuit, quod iudicem et

qui patrem dominum faceret." 1

As to the Holy Ghost, Tertullian says little about His pro-

cession. He makes Him originate a Patre per filium (4) : "adeo et filio sicut tertius a radice fructus a frutice, et tertius a

fonte rivus a flumine, et tertius a sole apex ex radio"

(8).

There are then three terms in God: the Father, the Son and

the Holy Spirit. What are they in themselves and in what

mutual relation do they stand?

First of all, our author observes, we must affirm God's

unity (2) : yet, this unity does not exclude a certain economy.Of the word olfcovafjuia Tertullian is rather fond (3) ;

accord-

ing to him, it signifies that there is in God a dispensation, a

communication of the unity; and thus the trinity flows from

the unity: "unitatem in trinitatem disponit" (2). This dis-

pensation does not divide, but merely distributes the unity:

it does not destroy, but organizes, the monarchy. As to the

new terms thus obtained, they are spiritual substances (sub-

stantivae res, 26, cf. 7), portions, as it were, of the whole divine

substance (ex ipsius del substantia ut portio aliqua totius,

26, cf. 9); they are persons (ittam dico personam, 7, cf. too u,

21


12, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24, 27, 31). Tertullian uses also the

words species, forma, gradus (2, 8), as equivalent to persona.

These three persons are numerically distinct among them-

selves. The great African Doctor has made good this truth

against the Sabellians with an abundance of texts and argu-

ments that leave no room for reply: "Duos quidem definimus

patrem et filium, et iam tres cum spiritu sancto secundum

rationem oeconomiae quae facit numerum" (13, 2, 8, 12, 22, 25).

On the other hand, these three persons are God: they have

the same nature, substance, state, power and virtue: "Et

pater deus, et films deus, et spiritus sanctus deus, et deus unus-

quisque" (13). "Tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nee sub-

stantia, sed forma, nee potestate, sed specie, unius autem

substantiae et unius status et unius potestatis" (2, cf. 22).

They are not unus; "unus enim singularis numeri significatio

videtur" (22); but they are unum, because among them there

is unity of substance: "Ego et Pater unum sumus, ad sub-

stantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem" (25).

Again Tertullian regards this unity of substance, not as simply

specific or generic, but as numerical and absolute. This maybe inferred, on the one hand, from the insistence with whichhe affirms that, between the Father and the Son, there is dis-

tinction and distribution of the unity, not separation anddivision (2, 3, 8, 9) ;

on the other hand, from the way in which

he constantly contrasts the numerical trinity of the Persons

with the unity of the substance, the unity of God (2) ; for,

he says, though the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are

God, there is but one only God (2, 13) : they are "a trinity of

one divinity/7 1 and the Son is God only from the unity of the

Father ("deus ex unitate patris")-2

So Tertullian reached the consubstantial strictly so called

and found its definitive formula: "tres personae, una sub-

1 De pudtcftia, 21. Adv. Pra., 19, cf. 12, 18

TERTULLIAN 313

stantia" l which will remain the formula of the Latin Church.

He reached the consubstantial, although, so to speak, he did

not get hold of it, nor realize all its bearing. This we have

already seen from his doctrine of the temporal generation of

the Word: the same inconsistency shows itself in his subordina-

tionism. The Son, he observes, possesses the divine substance,

yet less fully than the Father: the latter is the whole of which

the Son is but a part: "Pater enim tota substantia est, filius

vero derivatio totius et portio" (9). "Substantiva res est

(filius), et ut portio aliqua totius" (26, cf. i4).2 The Father is

greater than the Son (9); He cannot be seen "pro plenitu-

dine maiestatis," while the Son can be seen "pro modulo

derivationis" "pro temperatura portionis" (14). The Sonalone can come in contact with the finite.3 His authority,like that of a minister, is imparted to Him by the Father to

whom one day He is to give it back (3, 4). We recognize here

St. Justin's ideas.

On the other hand, Tertullian's teaching on the Holy Ghost

is remarkable in every way. The first, and the only one of the

Fathers until St. Athanasius, he affirmed His divinity in. an

express, clear and precise manner. A Montanist when he wrote

the Adversus Praxean, and a firm believer in the new revela-

tions, he emphatically proclaimed thegreatness of the Paraclete.

The Holy Spirit is God (13, 20), of the Father's substance (3,

4), one same God with the Father and the Son (2), proceeding

by and through the Son (4, 8), vicar (wcaria vis) of the Son/teacher of all truth (2).

1 Harnack (Lekrb. der D G., H, pp. 285, ff., note; History of Dogma, Vol. IV,

pp. 121, E., note) has maintained that Tertullian had used these words only in

a juridical sense, viz., as designating a moral person and riches or goods pos-

sessed. But this view cannot be upheld (cf. SEEBERG, Lehrb. d# D (?., p. 87,

note i).* Adv. Marcion., IH, 6.

8 Adv. Martian., n, 27.4 De fraescript., 13,

3H THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

Such as it is and in spite of the shortcomings we may notice

in it, the Trinitarian teaching of Tertullian marked a wonder-

ful progress on what had been previously held. A hundred

years, before Nicsea, the faith of the Church was stamped

therein, with its correct and definitive expression. Even the

theory of the generation in time was partly amended by the

distinction between the conception of the Word ad intra and

His generation ad extra: subordinationism was made less offen-

sive by the close relation established between the Son's in-

feriority and His origin, a relation which tended to ascribe

that inferiority to His personality rather than to His nature.

One step more in this direction, and the last traces of the con-

fusions of old will have disappeared.

While, as we have already seen, it would be probably un-

fair to charge Tertullian with having taught God's corporeity,

there is no doubt that he admitted the corporeity of the humansoul.1 This doctrine he borrowed from those Stoics, to whomhe appeals,

2 and from the physician Soranos of Ephesus whose

authority he highly extols.3

Moreover, he rests it on a peculiarvision of a woman, a Montanist, to whom a soul had appeared"tenera et lucida et aerii coloris, et forma per omnia humana."

4

In spite of that, he affirms that the soul is simple and indivisi-

ble,5 immortal in as much as it emanates from the breath of

God. 6 Tertullian is dichotomist;7 he rejects the preexistence

of souls as well as metempsychosis;8 but he admits a gross

tradudanism: the soul is sown like the body, and like it,

For instance, De anima, 9.

De amma, 5.

De amma, 6, 8, 14, 15, 25.

De amma, 9.

De amma, 10, 14, 22.

De amma, 6, 9, 14, 22, 53; Apologet., 48; De resurrectione carnis, 3.7 De amma, 18.

8 De anima, 4, 24, 28-30; 31-33,

TERTULLIAN 315

receives a sex;l and thus all souls were contained in Adam

from whom they come.2

Our author affirmed human freedom most emphatically and

saw in the exercise of that liberty the explanation of moral

evil and of sin.3 He saw it too in man's degradation since our

first parents' disobedience. That fault brought on for all man-kind not only death, but also other faults and their punish-ment: "Homo damnatur in mortem ob unius arbusculae

delibationem, et exinde proficiunt delicta cum poems, et

pereunt iam omnes qui paradisi nullam cespitem norunt." 4

"Portavimus enim imaginem choici per collegium transgres-

sionis, per consortium mortis, per exilium paradisi."5 It intro-

duced into the soul, into all souls, a stain, an original blemish,

a bent to sin. Here we find in Tertullian's thought some lack

of precision, which makes it impossible for us to tell with cer-

tainty whether he sees in that stain a sin strictly so called or

only the concupiscence that leads to it. However the former

hypothesis seems to agree with his sentiment: "Ita omnis

anima eo usque in Adam censetur donee in Christo recenseatur,

tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur." 6Anyhow, he does

not hesitate to say that it is because of our birth and descent

from Adam that we have a share in its evil character andwell deserved chastisements: "Per quern (Satanam) homo a

primordiis circumventus . . . exinde totum genus de suo se-

mine infectum, suae etiam damnationis traducem fecit." 7

There is, in this series of affirmations, at least a sketch of the

theory of original sin which Theology was later on to developand complete.

Fallen man needs a redeemer. This redeemer is Jesus Christ.

As for the Trinity, so also when speaking of the Saviour's per-

1 De anima,, 36.a De wwta> 40.

8 Ado. Marcion., n, 5, 6, 7.4 Adv. Marcion., I, 22.

6 De reswrectione carnis, 49.6 De anima, 40; cf. 16, 41.

7 De testimonio animae, 3.

3 i6 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

son, TertuHian knows how to strike the exact word and the

definitive formula. His Christology has all the merits of his

Trinitarian doctrine, and none of its defects.

Manifold indeed were the errors he had to oppose on this

subject: first of all, Docetism tinder its various shapes: some,

like Marcion, denying the reality even of the body of Jesus;

others, like Apelles, looking upon it as an astral and heavenly,or even, like Valentinus, as a psychical and spiritual body: all

agreeing in denying the true birth of the Redeemer ex Maria;then Gnostic dualism, the forerunner of Nestorianism, ad-

mitting a factitious and often transitory union between the two

elements, divine and human. Moreover Tertullian seems to

have met men who saw in the incarnation a transformation

of the Word into the flesh, or a fusing of the two united

natures into one. To all these errors he opposed precise

arguments.The body of Jesus Christ, he affirms, is real, conceived and

brought forth like ours, made up, like ours, of flesh and bones.1

Those who deny that reality do away at the same time with

the Saviour's sufferings and death, and transform into a mere

illusion all the economy of Redemption: a consequence which

draws from the great polemical writer a sublime exclama-

tion: "Farce unicae spei totius orbis!" 2 Moreover the

body of Christ is not heavenly: it was really born.3 The

Angels that appeared could frame for themselves sidereal

bodies, for they did not come down to die, but Christ, whocame down to die, must have been really born.4 So, He was

born, and born from the very substance of the Virgin, ex ea.

1 De carne Christi, i, 5, 9.* De came Christi, 5; Adv. Marcion., HI, 8.3 De carne Christi, 2.

* "Non venprant mori; ideo ncc nasci. At vero Christus roori missus nasca

quoque necessario habuit ut mori posset"1

(Decajne Ckristi^fy cf. 3; Adv.

.) HE, 9).

TERTULLIAN 317

The author insists on this point,1and, to convince us of it, does

not hesitate to accumulate grossly realistic details. Nay,

through fear that the birth of Jesus ex Maria might be opento suspicion, if he should teach that the Virgin remained virgin

even as regards the childbirth (uterus clausus), he rejects this

view unhesitatingly: "virgo quantum a viro: non virgo

quantum a partu . . . Itaque magis (vulva) patefacta est quia

magis erat clausa. Utique magis non virgo dicenda est quamvirgo."

2 Thus Jesus is of our kin: and as He took our body,because He was to save it,

3 so also He took our soul, a soul

spiritual and intelligent.4 He is then a perfect man, sharing

our passions, our weaknesses, our infirmities, barring sin: 5

He is the new man, the new Adam. 6

*

Yet, 'as Tertullian declares,7 He is also God; and hence the

question arises as to the way in which we should conceive and

express the union in Him between the divine and the human.

At first Tertullian looks upon that union as a kind of mixture

so intimate that God may truly be said to have become little,

to have been born and crucified: "Miscente in semetipsohonunem et Deum . . . Deus pusillus inventus est ut homomaximus fieret. Qui talem Deum dedignaris nescio an ex fide

credas Deum crucifixum." 8 "Nasci se Deus in utero patitur

matris." 9Soon, however, his pen writes down the definitive

formula: "Sietapostolus (Rom., i3) de utraque eius (Christi)

substantia docet: qui factus est, inquit, ex semine David, hie

erit homo et filius hominis qui definitus est filius Dei secun-

1 De carne Christi, 19-21.2 De came Christi, 23.8 De came Christi, 16, 14; cf. 7.

4 De carne Christi, 10, 14; De resurrect, carnis, 53.5 De came Christi, 5-9.6 De resurrect, carnis, 53.7 De praescript., 10, 33; De carne Christi, 14, 18, etc.

8 Adv. Marcion., n, 27; cf. Apologetic., 21,

9 De patientia, 3.

3i8 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

dum spiritum. Hie erit Deus et sermo Dei filius. Videmus

duplicem statum non confusum, sed coniunctum in una per-

sona, Deum et hominem lesum." 1

There is then in Jesus Christ only one person, but two

substances, una persona, duae substantiae? Hence we cannot

speak of a transformation of the divinity into the humanity,8

no more than of a fusion, a combination that would havemade only one substance out of two.4 Each one remains whatit is; nay, each one keeps its own distinct operations. So, the

teaching of the Council of Chalcedon and of St. Leo is formu-lated beforehand: "Sed quia substantiae ambae in statu suo

quaeque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operae et exitus sui

occurrerunt." 6"Quae proprietas conditionum divinae et

humanae aequa utique naturae utriusque veritate dispunctaest, eadem fide et spiritus et camis. Virtutes spiritum Dei,

passiones carnem hominis probaverunt,"6

Though Tertullian developed in none of his works his soterio-

logical teaching, but only sketched it, yet it is manifest that helookedupon the Incarnation as the consequence of a substitutionof Jesus Christ the innocent in the place of sinners, and of an

expiation supplied by the same Jesus Christ dying for us.

For our death could not be repaired but by the Lord's death.7

On the other hand, Jesus Christ is the new Adam in whom all

1 Adv. Praxean, 27. As to the meaning of the word status, cf . Adv. Prax.f 2.2 We may observe that Terttdlian always uses the word substantia to desig-

nate the nature. In the Trinity, una substantia, tres personae. The word naturahas for him another meaning: it designates the properties that may be commonto several diverse substances (De anima, 32). However, cf. below. Anyhow,the use of natura to designate the natures in Jesus Christ was uncommon tili

the fifth century.a"Transfiguratus in came an indutus carnem? Lno indutus" (Adv.

Pro*., 27; De carne Christi, 3, 18).4 Adv. Praxean, 27.5 Adv. Praxean, 27.6 De carne Christi, 5.7 De laptismo, u j

cf. De pudktiia, 22.

TERTULLIAN 319

souls were contained;l and His Father had sent Him, who

was sinless and holy, precisely that He might die for sinners.

Tliis the Saviour did, and thus He freed us from our faults and

from the death we deserved for them.2

However, salvation is a personal work, and the merits and

satisfactions of Jesus Christ do not exempt us from meriting

by ourselves our happiness and atoning for our sins. This

theory of merit and satisfaction is perhaps the one which, in

his whole work, betrays most bis legal spirit. He framed for

that theory a terminology which still survives and remains a

characteristic of Latin theology.3 Not that our author ignores

the share of Jesus in the fulfilment of ood works;4

but,

outside this consideration, the relations between God and manare, for him, nothing, strictly

<

peaking, but the relations be-

tween lord and servant and involve their consequences. If

we act well, we gain merit with God, nay we merit God:"Omnes salutis in promerendo Deo petitores,"

5 "Quomodo

multae mansiones apud patrem, si non pro varietate merito-

rum? " 6 God becomes our debtor: "Bonum factum deumhabet debitorem, sicuti et malum, quia iudex omnis remunera-

tor est causae." r The reward is a price: "eadem pretia quaeet merces," 8 On the contrary, through sin, we ojfend God andbecome His debtors; but we can and we must give Him, satis-

faction: "Offendisti, sed reconciliari adhuc potes, habes cui

satisfacias et quidem volentem." 9 We satisfy through pen-

1 De resurrectione carnis, 53; De anima, 40.9 De pudicitia, 22; De patientia, 3.1HARNACK, Lekrb. der D G., HI, pp. 16 and fL, note i; History of Dogma,

vol. V, pp. 16, ft; p. 18, note.4 Ad uxorem, I, 8; De anima, 21.

5 De paemtentia, 6.

9Scorpiace, 6; De oratione, 3, 4.

''

7 De paemtentia , 2; De exhort, castti., 2.

8Scorpiace, 6.

9 De paemtentia, 7; cf. 10, u,


ance,1 which is a compensation we offer to God: "Quam porro

ineptum quam paenitentiam non implere, ei veniam delic-

torum sustinere? Hoc est pretium non exhibere, ad mercemmanum emittere. Hoc enim pretio dominus veniam addi-

cere instituit; hac paenitentiae compensatione redimendam

proponit impunitatem."2 I need not insist on the peculiar

character of this phraseology: we have found nothing like it

in Origen.

Although Tertullian has a correct idea of the whole Church,

comparing it, as St. Paul does, to the body of Jesus,3 he turns

his attention in the Church chiefly to the particular churches

and communities of which it is made up, viewing them inde-

pendently of each other. These churches were founded by the

Apostles or by their successors, and their faith is one;4 but

those set up by the Apostles themselves enjoy, as we have

seen, a special consideration: their belief is the standard of

truth.5 The praise which, on this occasion, the author bestows

on the Church of Rome 6 does not necessarily imply that he

ascribed to her a primacy, strictly so called, of jurisdiction.

Likewise, nothing can be drawn in this regard from the titles

of pontifex maximus and episcopus episcoporum which he ap-

plies in contempt probably to Callistus,7 and the bearing of

which it is difficult to state with anything like precision.

Besides our author acknowledges the legitimacy of the eccle-

siastical hierarchy, which he declares is made up of the bishopthe summus sacerdos priests and deacons.8

However, in

his De exhortatione castitatis, written between the years 208-

1 De paenitentia, 5; cf. De ieiunio, 3; De pvdicitia, 9, 13; De patientia, 13.1 De paenitentia, 6; De patientia, 16; cf. Scorpiace, 6.

3 Adv. Marcion., V, 18.4 De praescript., 32, 36; De virgin, vel, 2.6 De praescript., 32, 36.6 De praescript., 36.7 De pudicitia, i.

8 De laftismo, 17; cf. De monogamia, n.

TERTULLIAN 321

211, he states that the distinction between the dergy and the

laity has been established by the Church, and that, for want of

the former, any ordinary Christian may fulfil the priestly func-

tions: "Nonne et laid sacerdotes sumus? . . . Adeo ubi ec-

clesiastid ordinis non est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et

sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laid . . .

Igitur si habes ius sacerdotis in temetipso, ubi necesse est,

etc;" and he quotes Apocalypse, i6

.

1 He even goes farther in

his De pudicitia (217-222), whose tendendes are altogether

montanistic, and seems to grant to the Spirituals alone the

power of remitting certain sins: a power he denies to bishops.2

For Tertullian, the necessity of Sacraments is justified and

their efficacy accounted for, by the union between body and

soul. The sensible sign, acting on the body, is the instrument of

the interior working, the vehide of grace which reaches the

soul: "Supervenit em'm statim spiritus de caelis, et aquis

superest, sanctificans eas de semetipso, et ita sanctificatae vimsanctificandi combibunt." 3 There are too these classical

words in which the three Sacraments of Christian initiation

are successively mentioned:"Caro salutis est cardo. De qua

cum anima deo allegitur, ipsa est quae effidt ut anima allegi

possit. Scilicet caro abluitur ut anima emaculetur; caro

ungitur, ut anima consecretur; caro signatur, ut et anima

muniatur; caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut et anima

spiritu illuminetur; caro corpore et sanguine Christi vesdtur,

ut et anima de deo saginetur."4

Our author devoted a special treatise to Baptism. This

Baptism, he says, is administered in the name of the three

divine Persons,5 and the Christian, as the divine J##te, is born

in water. 6 In the actual economy, Baptism is required for

salvation, though it can be replaced by martyrdom.7 Its

1 De exhortation castitotis, 17.2 De pudicitia, 21.

8 De baptismo, 4.* De reswrrectione carnis

t8.

8 De bapfismo, 15; Adv. Prax., 2$,6 De baft., i.

7 De bapt., 12, 13, 16.


effect is to remit sins;l it is imparted only once.2 Tertullian

considers as void the baptism administered by heretics.3 As

Irenaeus and Origen, he witnesses to the custom of baptizing

children, which, however, he does not favor; for he thinks

it would be better if the candidate to Baptism were taughtbeforehand Christian doctrine and gave solid hope that he

would persevere.4 It belongs first to the bishop and then,

after him and with his consent, to priests and deacons, to give

Baptism: siniple laymen too can do it, but not women.5It

is solemnly conferred chiefly at Easter and Pentecost; though,

as to its efficacy, all days are good :"Si de solemnitate interest,

de gratia nihil refert." 6

It has been already noticed that Tertullian mentions Con-

firmation and assigns as its twofold rite the consignatio and

the laying on of hands. 7 His Eucharistic doctrine has givenrise to some difficulties: however, on the whole, it is mani-

festly orthodox. The Eucharist is for him the body and blood

of the Lord, on which the flesh is fed, that the soul may fatten

on God;8 which the prodigal son receives on his return to

the heavenly Father's house (opimitate dominici corporis

vescitur, eucharistia scilicet) ;

9 which Jesus Christ Himself

sets before us in the bread He gives us.10 Hence it is that

Christians are anxious to let nothing of it fall on the ground,11

1 De la.pt., i, 18; Adv. Marc., I, 28.

2 De bapt., 15.8 De bapt., 15. In this place Tertullian tells us that he had composed in

Greek a special treatise on that topic; cf . De pudicitia, 19.4 De bapt., 18.

*Debapt., 17.

6 De bapt., 19.7 De resurrectione carnis, 8; De bapt., 7, 8.

8 De resurrect, carnis, 8.

9 De pudicitia, 9.10 "Panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat" (Adv. Marcion., I, 14).

As to themeaning of the word repraesentare in Tertullian, cf. GOKE, Dissertations

ensubjects

connected with the Incarnation, London, 1895, p. 310,

TERTULLIAN 323

and that those, whether priests or ordinary faithful, whohandle it with hands that have made idols, torture the Lord's

body.1 The author adds that it is distributed by the leaders

of the assembly,2though it can be preserved, to be consumed

afterwards on fast days;3 the Christian wives of heathen

husbands take it secretly before any other food.4 As to the

other two passages, Aduersus Marcionem, IV, 40 and III, 9,

that are contrary, it seems, to the doctrine of the real presence,

they are easily explained, if we remark that our author sees

even in unconsecrated and ordinary bread the figure of the

flesh of Jesus Christ: "Mittamus lignum in panem eius"

(Jerem.j n19). Finally we may observe that for him, the

Eucharist is not merely a Sacrament, but also a sacrifice,5

which is offered on the anniversary of Martyrs and for the

departed.6

Tertullian's penitential doctrine will be studied later on.

On the question of marriage, his views had always been severe,

until they became altogether heretical. Adultery is for hima legitimate motive of repudium, although it does not confer

on the wife who is put away the right to remarry.7 In his

Ad uxorem (I, i),. written between the years 200-206, he

comes out already quite strongly against second marriages.

In his De exhortatione castitatis (i, 2, 5) composed between

the years 208-211, he condemns them as a kind of adultery;

while in the De monogamia (after the year 213), he opposes

emphatically any compromise and maintains that the newlaw of the Paraclete has amended on this point the indulgence

of the Gospel (i, 2, 14). We may notice his importantstatement that in order to be held .as undoubtedly le-

1 De ttololairia, 7.* De corona, 3.

8 De ora&ione, ip.4 Ad uocorem, EC, 5.

6 De oratione, 19.* De torona, 3, *

* De wonogamat 9, ,


gitimate, the marriage must be performed before the

Church.1

Moreover, our author's exaggerated severity on the ques-

tion of second marriages is but one particular feature of that

severity which permeates all his system of ethics. True, in

theory, he distinguishes between precepts and counsels;2

but when he comes to deal with the practical cases of conscience

which Christians living in the midst of Pagans had every dayto face and settle, he seems to forget this distinction and

ordinarily requires nothing short of the extreme. Virgins

must absolutely wear the veil (De rirginibus velahdis) ;Chris-

tians are forbidden to flee or to redeem themselves with moneyduring the persecution (De fuga in persecutione) ; in the nameof the Paradete, we are obliged to fast often and rigorously

(De ieiunio adversus psychicos). A Christian can neither serve

in the army (De corona), nor be present at shows (De spectacu-

Us). Likewise he is not allowed to exercise a profession tainted

with idolatry; to sell anything that may be used for the wor-

ship of idols, unless he is sure that, as a matter of fact, whathe sells shall not be used for that purpose; as a general rule,

he is forbidden to be in trade, for cupidity is its aim, and

lying, its means, and finally to fulfil a public function, imperialor municipal, because one thus circumstanced is always ex-

posed to perform some deed of idolatry (De idoklatria). In

a wordj Tertullian is anxious to introduce into the life of each

one of the faithful an ideal both impracticable and -unsound.

The Christian he imagines, in order to remain such, ought to

have ceased being a citizen and the member of a family; he

ought to have banished himself from society. This would

1 "Ideo penes nos occultae quoque coniunctiones, id est non prius apudecclesiam professae, iuzta moechiam et fornicationem iudicari periditantur"(De pudicitia, 4).

* Ad uxor., IE, i: Adv. Mwcion., I, 29; n, 17; cf. I, 23.

TERTULLIAN 3*5

have been at the same time a justification of that charge of

hatred of mankind, with which the Heathen assailed the fol-

lowers of the new Creed.

Tertullian's eschatology remains to be examined. Its tone

is quite archaic and realistic. If we except the souls of martyrs,which are immediately received into Heaven, the other souls,

he says, go, like that of Christ, to Limbo, where they stayuntil the day of the resurrection.1 There they are variouslydealt with: "Supplicia iam illic et refrigeria."

2 Those of

the just rejoice, for the good thoughts they had and the goodactions 'they performed without the body's help; on the con-

trary, those of the wicked begin to suffer, for the evil 'they

loved or accomplished. Even slight faults will be atoned for.3

The dogma of the resurrection of the body is one of those

our author has most strongly proved (De carne Christi, Deresurrectione carnis). This resurrection, he observes, is neces-

sary that man may be rewarded or punished, not merely for

his interior intentions and dispositions, but also for his ex-

ternal and actual deeds.4 Hence the very same flesh we had

shall rise again, though in a new state: "Non abstulit (Deus)

substantiam, cui similitudinem (angelorum) attribuit." "Re-

surget igitur caro, et quidem omnis, et quidem ipsa, et quidem

Integra." 5 On the other hand, this new life shall not be

granted to all at the same moment. At the end of the present

world, first the just shall rise, not indeed all together, but

sooner or later according to their deserts, to reign a thousand

1 De anima, $5.* De anima, 58.8 De anima, 58; De resurrect, carnis, 17. This last remark of TertuUian

"Novissimum quadrantem modicum quoque delictum mota resurrectionis illic

luendum mterpretamur" (De anima, 58) shows dearly, as Harnack observes

(Lekrb. der D &, I, 570, note; History of Dogma, Vol. n, p. 296, note), the

belief in some kiid of purgatory.4 De resurrect, carnis, 17.5 De resurrect, carnis, 62, 63.


years with Christ in the Jerusalem that will come down from

Heaven.1Then, after that lapse of time, the world will be

destroyed and, in their turn, the wicked rise for the judg-

ment.2 The just will taste forever the happiness of seeing

God; the lost will remain "in poena aeque iugis ignis, habentes

ex ipsa natura eius divinam scilicet administrationem incor-

ruptibilitatis," for this fire will add new fuel to the chastise-

ment itself.3 Tertullian concludes his eschatology with a

picture of the maddening fear which will take hold of the

damned on the last day: a picture which seems to anticipate

the medieval descriptions.4

We should not form a fair and complete idea of our author,

if we were to judge him merely from his eschatology: but

if we compare his teaching on this subject with that of Origenon the same topic, we may easily realize the distance that

separates these two men: Origen, a genius, anxious to ex-

pand and to open before us intellectual horizons, fond chiefly

of light and ready to frame systems; Tertullian, made up of

precision and vigor, on principle abiding by the positive

data of tradition and faith which he; did not always under-

standwitness his Montanism and eager above all to

bring their contents home to us by the striking features of

his thought and style.

3. Novation.5

At the time when St. Hippolytus was going into exile, in

the year 235, he who was to become later on the heretic Nova-

1 Adv. Marcion., HI, 24.2 De spectaculis, 30; De anima, 55.8Apologetic., 48.

* De spectaculis, 30; cf . P. MONCEATJX, op. citat., I, p. 360. R* The edition quoted for the De Trinitate and the De cibis iudoicis is that of

P. ., HI; for the letters, that of St. Cyprian, by W. HAHTEL. Consult H,JOKDAN, Die Tkeologie der neuentdeckten Predigten Novatians, Leipsic, 1902,

NOVATIAN 327

tian was beginning to be known in Rome. At first it mayseem strange that we reckon him among the founders of

Latin Theology. A disciple and imitator of Tertullian, he

reproduced so faithfully the latter's doctrine and expressions

that St. Jerome could say he had summed up the great con-

troversialist;1 and it is true that in those of his writings that

have reached us, he does not show anything like originality.

But his writings are the first which were composed in Latin

at Rome on theological topics. The treatise De Trinitate

especially, conceived as an explanation of the fundamental

truths of the Symbol, is written with a care for order and

method, which made it for a long time the model of works

of the same kind. By its substance and form, it has exercised

a considerable'influence on the later Roman theology, and this

is why its author may be reckoned among the pioneers of

Western theology.2

The treatise De cibis iudaids makes us acquainted with

the attitude taken by Novatian in regard to the Old Law.

He did not deny the literal meaning nor the obligatory char-

acter of its prescriptions as to the choice of the various kinds

of food; but he discovered in those prescriptions a higher

spiritual and allegorical meaning, and he saw most often in

the Mosaic economy nothing but a system of shadows and

figures which were to disappear at the coming of Jesus Christ.3

We must examine chiefly our author's Trinitarian doctrine.

As Tertullian, Novatian starts in his exposition with the

1 De viris ttlustr., 70. The word refers to the De Trinitate of Novatian: butinstead of stmmed up, St. Jerome might have written with more exactness

developed (cf. P. L., Ill, col. 869, note 7).2 Novatian's writings are, besides the treatise De Trinitate, the pamphlet

De cibis iudaicis and letters XXX and XXXVI among those of St. Cyprian.

Moreover, several other works, to be spoken of later on, have been ascribed

to him.

(

* De cibis iudaicis, 4.

22


person of the Father. God is one (De Trinitate, so).1 God

is the Father (30, 31); He is transcendent: "Maior est enim

Deus mente ipsa, nee cogitari possit quantus sit.7 '

(2, cf. 7).

All anthropomorphism is set aside (5, 6).

Before the beginning of time and always, the Father pos-

sesses in Himself and begets His Son. That He eternally

possessed Him in Himself, the Apologists and Tertullian

admitted; that He begot Him from all eternity, Tertullian

admitted only partially, since by distinguishing in God the

conception from the generation properly so called, he did not

ascribe to Him an eternal fatherhood. Novatian goes one

step further. Though the Son, conceived and born eternally

from the Father, remains in Him, yet this first birth suffices

to make God Father from all eternity: "Hie ergo (Filius),

cum sit genitus a Patre, semper est in Patre. Semper autem

sic dico, ut non innatum sed natum probem . . . Semperenim in Patre, ne Pater non semper sit Pater" (31). How-

ever, this first generation must receive a complement. WhenHe wills, viz., at the time of creation, God utters His Word:the latter is not merely born, He proceeds: He was in the

Father, He becomes with the Father :

"Ex quo (Patre) , quando

ipse voluit, sermo Filius natus est; ... hie ergo, quandoPater voluit, processit ex Patre; et qui in Patre fuit, processit

ex Patre; et qui in Patre fuit, quia ex Patre fuit, cum Patre

postmodum fuit, quia ex Patre processit" (31).

Thus born and come from the Father, the Son is a second

person, and as such, distinct from Him ("secundain personamefficiens post Patrem, qua Filius," ji, col. 950) ; besides, Heis "substantia divina" (31, coL 950, A), God, as the Father

(11-24, 31)- There is between them a" communio substantiae"

(31, col. 952, B). True, the Father is anterior to the Son,

1 All the following references between parentheses are taken, unless other-wise stated, from the treatise De Trinitate,

NOVATIAN 329

but it is only "qua Pater" (31, col. 949, B); just as the Son

is a second person after the Father, only "qua Filius" (31,

col. 950, A).

Here evidently Novatian comes as close as possible to the

consubtantial: and yet, he does not discard, in his exposition,

the subordinatian tendency he has found in that of Tertullian.

He not only admits that personal subordination which results,

in one way necessarily, for the Son, from the fact that His

being is communicated to Him (31, coL 949, B C); moreover

he declares that, unlike the Father, the Son is neither invisible

nor incomprehensible (31, col. 950, B C): He it is that ap-

peared in the theophanies, as an image of the Father, accom-

modated to the weakness of our eyes (18, cf. 19, 20); Heobeys the Father in all things (61, col. 951, AB; 26); in a

word He is inferior to the latter (27). This weak point of

Novatian's teaching did not escape the notice of later theologi-

ans, and it is interesting to see in the Conflictus Arnobii

catholici et Serapionis (I, n),1 some fragments of the 3ist

chapter of the De Trmitate quoted as the faithful expression

of Arianism.

Concerning the Holy Spirit, bur author reproduces the

Biblical data. Nowhere does he call Him God. However, he

makes Him the third term of the Trinity (29), ascribes to Hima divine eternity and a heavenly virtue (dimna aeternitas

caekstis virtus, 29), and styles Him the "illuminator rerum

divinarum" (16) : but he subordinates Him to Christ: "minor

autem Christo Paraditus" (16, col. 915): the place of the

Holy Ghost is between the Son from whom He receives, and

creatures to whom He gives (ibid.).

As in his Trinitarian, so also in his ChristologicaJ teaching,

Novatian depends on Tertullian. We shall give a mere sum-

mary of what he says on Jesus Christ. The latter is truly

p. L., Lin.


man: His real body is neither ethereal nor sidereal, but taken

ex Maria and born of her, therefore similar to ours, which Hewas to regenerate by His resurrection (10). On the other

hand, Jesus Christ is God. He is then both God and man.

"Tam enim Scriptura etiam Deum annuntiat Christum quametiam hominem ipsum anauntiat Deum; tarn hominem

descripsit Jesum Christum quam etiam Deum quoque des-

cripsit Christum Dominum" (u, 17). Novatian insists on

this duality of dements. The expressions assumpsit carnem,

suscepit hominemj substantiam hominis induit, etc., are those

he usually employs to designate the Incarnation (13, 21, 22,

23). He mistrusts the formulas which ascribe to God the

death and sufferings of Jesus, and takes the care to state themwith more precision (25). One feels he is on his guard against

adversaries. Opposing the Modalists who confound in Jesusthe divine element with the Father, and the human nature

with the Son, he observes that in Jesus the man is Son of God,not waturaliter, principaliter, but consequenter, viz., as a con-

sequence of his union with the Word, that this filiation* is in

him, something feneratum, mutuatum (24) : which does not

mean, however, that, according to our author, Jesus Christ,

as man, is only the adopted Son of God, but that He is His

Son only because of the union. The instant when the latter

took place is not specified, and in spite of the lack of precisionof some passages (24, col. 934, B; 13, col. 907, C), it wouldbe unfair to charge Novatian with having postponed it till

after the Saviour's conception.As a matter of fact, he fully acknowledges the personal unity

of Jesus Christ, and although the expression una persona is

not explicitly found in his works, yet its equivalent is found.

The union of the humanity and of the divinity, he tells us, is

a permixtio (u), an annexio, a connexio et permixtio sociata,a fransductio; Jesus is ex utroque connexus, contextus, concrePus

(24); aad this, he adds, was needed that Christ might be

NOVATIAN 331

mediator: "ut . . . et Deum homini, et hominem Deo copu-laret" (23, cf. 21).

Almost all the De Trinitate of Novatian is devoted to the

exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation.

However he touches, in the same work, on a few other dogmatic

points which it will suffice to mention. Thus he affirms man'sfreedom (i, col. 887, 888; 10, col. 903): the soul's divine

origin and immortality (i, col. 887; 25, col. 935); the pos-

sibility for us to merit or to demerit ("praemia condigna et

merita poenarum," i, col. 888); the indefectibility and holi-

ness of the Church: this Church is kept by the Holy Spirit

"incorrupt and inviolate in the sanctity of a perpetual vir-

ginity and truth" (29, col. 946). Besides, with Tertullian,

Novatian admits that the souls of the just and of the wicked

go, after death, to a lower place where they taste the first

fruits of their future judgment: "futuri iudicii praeiudicia

sentientes" (i, col.

Besides his undisputed works, some anonymous treatises,

which are edited among the sfiuria of St. Cyprian,1 and more-

over are meagre in theological data, have been ascribed to

Novatian with more or less probability: the De spectacidis,

in which (5) there is a testimony on the Eucharist, the bodyof Christ; the De bono pudicitiae, an earnest exhortation to

virginity; the De laude martyrii, which contains a realistic

description of the everlasting punishments of Hell and of the

happiness of Heaven (20, 21, cf. n). We may mention also

the Adversus ludaeos. Besides these rather short writings,

several contemporary scholars (Weyman, Haussleiter, Zahn,H. Jordan) have expressed the opinion that Novatian was

also the author of the twenty Tractatus recently discovered

1 S. Thasci Caedln CyprM opera oimia, edit. W. HABTEL, Vienna, 1868-

1871, torn. in.


by Mgr. Batiffol, and published by him under the title of

Tractatus Origenis de libris 55. Serifturarum (Paris, 1900).

This view, however, is unfounded: the style of the Tractatus

differs from that of Novatian, and their theology shows mani-

festly a considerable progress on that of the De Trinitate.

Mgr. Batiffol thinks they are anterior to the peace of

Constantine and are the work of some Novatianist who lived

in the beginning of the fourth century; Harnack unhesitatingly

assigns their composition to the time after the Council

of Nicsea, and at the earliest to the end of the fourth

century.1

These remarks being made, we shall present here a short

sketch of the doctrine developed in these Tractates?

God, represented as transcendent (I, p. n, 24 p. 12, 5;

cf. I, p. 3, 18-19) ,

8 has created man. The latter is body and

soid (I, p. 5, 25-27; cf. I, p. 4, 4-9, etc.); moreover in the

Christian, faith adds a third element, the Spirit of God (I,

p. 4, 4-8; p. 3, 25; XH, p. 135, 1-12; XX, p. 210, 25).

Unfortunately, the sin of the first man has corrupted all

things: "Peccavit Adam et corrupta sunt omnia" (VII, p.

77 ? 5; cf V, p. 56, 9-11); all nations "conclusi sub peccatoAdae et rei transgressionis atque obnoxii tenebantur" (V,

p. 52, 5-8). Hence come death and all evils, the tyranny of

sin and of the devil over the world and over man (XI, p. 123,

15-17; XIH,p. 147, 11-17; VH,p. 78, 5-11; X,p. in, 13

p. 112, 3, etc.). But God will replace man in the state wherehe was before his fall; He will grant him again to live always

1 GescMchle dear dtihristUchen Litteratur,,Die Chronologfe, n, p. 410.* Cf. H. JORDAN, Die Theologie der n&uentdeckten Predigten Novatians, Leip-

ac, 1902. P. BATIFFOL, Les "Tractatus Origenis," a propose?un ttvre nouveau,in the Revue BiUique, 1903, pp, 81-93; and "Pas Nmatien" in the Bulletin deUttGrat. ecclesiastique, 1900, pp. 283-297.

8 In the following references, the Roman number designates the treatise;the Arabic numbers, the page of the edition, and the line.

NOVATIAN 333

to God, to be immortal (I, p. 4, 12; XVII, p. 187, 17, ff.);

He will make him God by means of grace (I, p. 9, 23, 24);

and this work shall be an effect of His mercy, although manmust necessarily concur therewith and may gain for himself

by this cooperation a merit properly so called (I, p. 3, 22-24;

p. 10, 10; p. 9, 23; p. 1,4,5).^

The Tractatus do not contain the theory of the temporal

generation of the Logos; on the other hand, they set forth,

with a manifest progress in the formulas, the Trinitarian

doctrine of Tertullian and Novatian. The use of the wordnatura instead of the word substantia may be particularly

noticed. The Son was born from the Father, and consequentlythere is between them a personal distinction, with unity of

nature: "Filius eterrim Dei, Deus verus de Deo vero, unigeni-

tus ab ingenito, non potest alms esse quain Deus" (III, p. 33,

19-20)." Pater et Filius indicantur, in quibus non natura

dividitur, sed personae distinctae monstrantur" (VI, p. 67,

18). "Sicut enim ex leone leo nascitur, ita Deus de Deo et

lumen ex lumine procedere dicitur. Sicut enim cum ex leone

leo nascitur, non natura mutatur, sed una origo ostenditur,

sic et.Deus ex Deo natus aliud non potest esse quam Deus"

(VI, p. 67, 20 p. 68, i). "Diximus leonem et catulum

leonis Patrem et Filium indicare quorum una natura est geniti

et ingeniti. Unde et ipse Salvator ait: Ego in Patre et Pater

in me est. Sed alter in altero esse non potest nisi per naturae

individuam imitatem" (VI, p. 68, 16-20; and cf. I, p. 9, 15

p. 10, 17; HI, p. 33, 5, ii, 14, 18; XIH, p. 148, 18, ff.).

Whether this unity of nature is, for the author, such as to

do away with any inferiority on the part of the Son in regard

to the Father, is not certain. In any case, Subordinationism

appears very little (III, p.. 33, 16-19; cf. VI, p. 67, 21; p. 68,

16-19)-: na^, our treatises contain a formula which proclaimsthe equality in power and virtue of the three Persons of the

Trinity: "Nemo vincit nisi qui Patrem et Filium et Spiritual


Sanctum aequali potestate et indifferent! virtute crediderit"

(XIV, p. 157, 11-13)- As can be seen, this same text implicitly

affirms the divinity of the Holy Ghost, whose "divina aeterni-

tas" and "caelestis virtus" are also taught (XX, p. 210, 25,

ff.), according to the corresponding passage of Novatian (De

Trinitate, 29).

As the Trinitarian, so also the Christological doctrine of the

Tractates follows in the wake of that of Novatian and of

Tertullian. The Word has put on a real flesh (XIV, p. 154,

12, ff.) ?a flesh which, although in itself and apart from the

union, is defiled and sinful (XIX, p. 203, i, 9, 17; p. 204, 7-9),

is in Jesus Christ without any stain (XV, p. 164, 7; XIX,p. 203, 8). Jesus Christ is the son of the Patriarchs (VII,

p. 80, 6, etc.); He was born of the Virgin Mary (VI, p. 68, 7,

8, 10; etc.), and received a human soul as we did (XVII, p. 184,

22-25),

Moreover, as He is also God, the Saviour combines in Him-self two natures. True, our author nowhere wrote down the

expression: "two jnatures:" but he speaks in various placesof the divine nature (VI, p. 69, 4) and of the human nature

(XIV, p. 154, 20, ff.) of Jesus Christ. The one is emphatically

distinguished from the other, and what belongs properly to

each one is set apart: "Timor non Dei sed suscepti hominis

fuit" (XIV, p. 154, 12, ff.; VI, p. 59, 17, ff.; XHI, p. 149,

19; XVII, p. 184, 12). The words which express the unionrecall those of Novatian: induit carnem, adsumpsit carnem,

suscepit carnem hominis (V, p. 49, 4, etc.; p. 51, 15; XVII,p. 184, 13, etc.).

Christ thus set forth is the second Adam (XVH, p. 184, 21;

XX, p. 209, 22). The simttitudo Dei, lost through sin, is againformed in Him. The idea of recapiMatio is in the author's

mind, although he does not formally express it (IX, p. 99, 4).We have been saved by the second Adam. The Tractatus set

forth the Redemption under a twofold aspect: first, as a re^

NOVATIAN 335

purchase properly so called: the blood of Jesus Christ is a

price He pays for us, "praemio sui sanguiois nos a mortuis li-

beravit" (XVIII, p. 197, 18, ff.); then as a sacrifice and an

expiation which Jesus Christ, priest and victim, having taken

our sins on Himself, has fulfilled in our stead and for our

benefit: "Sacerdos, inquam, hie noster . . . semetipsum in

sacrificio dedit" (XIX, p. 206, 12, ff.)- "Ulic suspensus est

dominus, ut peccata nostra ... in ligno crucis per eumdemhominem affixa punirentur" (H, p. 15, 4, ff.; cf. p. 18, 17;

IX, p. 102, i; XIX, p. 204, 18).

As we said above, some scholars have thought that our

author was probably a Novatianist. This conclusion is

drawn from his insistence on setting forth the Church alwaysas holy, pure and spotless (III, p. 25, 17; XX, p. 212, 5); on

requiring from the Christian after Baptism a life without

reproach and stain (I, p. 3, 17; VIII, p. 94, 6, etc.); on

speaking of the severe, exact, austere "discipline'' to which

we ought to submit (VI, p. 71; XI, p. 126; XVI, p. 178, etc.) ;

it is drawn chiefly from the passage where he seems to state

that any canonical reconciliation is impossible to him whohas become guilty of idolatry, incest, adultery, unnatural

sins and murder (X, p. 112, 19, ff.). The absolute character

of this last affirmation goes even beyond the strictness of

early Novatianism and seems to show that the Tractatus

were composed at a time when the heresy had made new

steps in the way of rigorism.1

For the remainder of the teaching contained in the work,

a few indications will suffice. An allusion to the Eucharist

is found in the 2nd Tractates (p. 18, 17). In the i7th Tractatus,

we are told (p. 184, 6; p. 187, n) that our resurrection "in

eadem carne" is made sure by that of Jesus Christ; on the

other hand, the dwelling-place of souls since the descent of

1 Cf. the following chapter.


Jesus Christ to Limbo is not stated with precision; we read

simply that the Patriarchs are in Heaven (XIV, p. 155, 8, f.;

cf. V, p. 51, 20, ff.; XVH, p. 183, 24 p. 184, 4). As to the

wicked, their punishments are only provisional until the last

judgment (V, p. 52, 14, ff.)-

CHAPTER X

THE QUESTION OF PENANCE IN THE WEST DURING THE THIRD

CENTURY. NOVATIANISM

i. The Question of Penance in Rome, tinder Callistus.1

FROM what precedes, one may see that, except Hennas,the authors of the second century supply on penance but

scanty and vague information. Hennas speaks of it as an

extraordinary favor granted to his contemporaries, a favor

of which they should hasten to avail themselves, for it cannot

be' renewed either for individuals or for the Church. Be-

sides, nobody is excluded from that penance and from the

subsequent cure, except perhaps the apostates that blas-

pheme and inform against their brethren. Likewise, apos-tates are not excluded from the communion of the Church,if we judge from the episode of the Martyrs of Lyons in

177, related by the letter of the Churches of Lyons and

Vienne. Among the Christians that were seized, some

weakened and denied their faith: but, instead of giving them

up, those confessors who had remained faithful imparted to

them their own spiritual goods, prayed the Heavenly Father

1 Sources: TERTULLIAN, De paenitentia^ De pudicitia. Phttosophoumena,

DC, 12. Works: E. PBEUSCHEN, Terfattians Sckriften De pGMfatito wnd De

pudicitia, wit Riicksicht auf Bussdisziplin untersucht, Giessen, 1890. E. ROUSTS,Das Indulgent-Edict des r'dmischen Bischofs Kallist Kttiisch unietsueht und

recmstruiert> Leipsic, 1893. P. BATOTOL, Etudes d'Histwre et de Thtotogfo

positive, ist series, 3rd edit., Paris, 1904.

for them and shed tears which He did not despise. Theywho had gone astray amended, and, even before their martyr-

dom, were reinstated in the Church (ry e/c/cXrja-ia ^poaer^-

fft]<ra,v). On the other hand, however, St. Irenaeus speaks of

women who had been corrupted by Marcus and his disciples,1

and some of whom, he says, confessing their crime, spent all

their lives in public penitence; others, despairing of leading a

godly life, left the Church altogether; others, finally, hesitated

and did not know what determination to take: 2 a detail

which seems to show that the penance for fornication had to

last until death, and was so strict as to dishearten souls weak

and of mediocre virtue.

This is about all that we know of the penitential discipline

in the West during the first two centuries. But, from the very

beginning of the third century, the subject becomes dearer.

Tertullian has written two works on penance: one, the De

paenitewtia, which is an instruction destined to Catechumens,

goes back to the years 200-206; the other, the De pudicitia,

composed between the years 217 and 222, is a pamphlet aimed

at Pope Callistus, on the occasion of a relaxation introduced

by the latter into the discipline. Both make us fairly ac-

quainted with the way in which this question was probablyunderstood in Africa and in Rome, at the beginning of the

third century, by Christians and especially by the author of

these writings.

In the De paenitentia, Tertullian distinguishes two kinds

of penance: the one, preparatory to Baptism, the other which,if necessary, is performed after Baptism. The former has for

its purpose to place the soul in a state of purity without whichthe effect of the Sacrament could not be lasting (6, p. 655);

8

1EusEBitrs, EccL Hist., V, i, 45, 48; n, 6, 7,

2 Adv. haereses, I, 13, 5, 7.1 All the following references between parentheses designate, unless other-

wise stated, the De paentientia, edit. (HLE&.

THE QUESTION OF PENANCE 339

it must bear on all sins, both, interior and exterior (4, p. 648) ;

begun with fear, it is concluded by the sinner's amendment,the natural consequence of a true conversion (2, p. 645).

Regularly, this first penance should be followed by none other,

since, once baptized, the Christian should not be guilty of

any moral lapses. Unfortunately, such lapses do occur, and

therefore there is for sinners a second plank of salvation, a

second penance (7, p. 656). Otherwise God's threats as well

as the Gospel parables could not be accounted for (8). Nowthis second penance is not performed simply in the heart; it

implies a series of external acts which make up the public

penance, and are described by Tertullian (9, pp. 659, 660).

The first is the confession of sins. Though tie author does

not say expressly to whom it belongs to receive it,1yet from

the whole context, we may infer that this power belongs to the

bishop or to his delegate. For the avowal must serve to

determine the satisfaction imposed on the culprit "quate-nus satisfactio confessione disponitur" (9, p. 660), a satis-

faction that must be determined both in its rigor and its

duration.2 Now this satisfaction is preeminently a disciplinary

measure which concerns the Christian community and is per-

formed in its midst, and the nature and circumstances of

which the bishop has the right to settle. We may observe

that Tertullian does not state anywhere whether the confes-

sion of sins is to be public. The satisfaction is to be public,

and consequently the sinner's guilt also shall be made neces-

sarily public in one way (10, p. 661) ;but of a public avowal,

properly so called, no mention is made.

The satisfaction or expiation follows the avowal of sins, and

constitutes the second act of penance. It is quite severe:

1 The words "qua delictum domino confitemur" (De paenti., 9, p. 660) are

undetermined and vague: any avowal made to the bishop is, after all, made to

God whom he represents.8 De pudictiia, 18, p. 834.


the penitent prostrates and humbles himself, sleeps on ashes,

sets aside the ordinary means of cleanliness, feeds on bread

and water, fasts, weeps, "mugit," devotes himself day and

night to prayer, then, in the meeting of the faithful, drags

himself to the feet of the priests, the confessors, the widows,

all the brethren, humbly entreating them to intercede for

him.1 Tertullian affirms that in this way, the penitent offers

to God a real satisfaction, appeases His wrath and is restored

to the state from which he had fallen: "Paenitentia deus

mitigatur . . . ut in peccatorem ipsa (paenitentia) pronun-tians pro dei indignatione fungatur, et temporal! afflictatione

aetema suppKcia non dicam frustretur, sed expungat. Cumigitur provolvit hominem, magis relevat; cum squalidum facit,

magis mundatum reddit: cum accusat, excusat; cum condem-

nat, absolvit." 2 Whence comes to the expiation its efficacy,

the author does not say explicitly: he merely supposes that

the tears and prayers of the faithful, in whom and by whomChrist weeps and prays for the guilty, move the heart of God:

"Cum te ad fratrum genua protendis, Christum contrectas,

Christum exoras. Aeque illi cum super te lacrimas agunt,

Christus patitur, Christus patrem deprecatur. Facile impe-tratur semper quod filius postulat."

3

The last act still remains to be performed: it crowns, as

it were, what the satisfaction has begun: the bishop forgives

the culprit ("veniam ab episcopo consequi potent,"4) and

reinstates him in ecclesiastical communion. The sinner

enters again into the church, at the gate of which he was

kneeling, and takes part in the common prayers and liturgy.5

1Depaenit., 9, p. 660; Depudkitia, 13, pp. 817, 818.

2 De paenit.j g, pp. 660, 661.8 De paenit.j 10, p. 661.4 De pudicitia, 10, p. 834.5 De pudicttia, 3, p. 797; 7, p. 806; 13, p. 820; De paemt., 7, p. 657; cf.

Apologetic., 39, p. 257.


In his De paenitentia, Tertullian says nothing of this powerof absolving vested in the bishop: but, as we shall see later

on, he treats of it expressly in his De pydicitia.

Thus understood and described, the exomologesis or penanceis not for Tertullian what it was for Hennas, viz., an extra-

ordinary and transient concession: it is a permanent institu-

tion, although each sinner can avail himself of it only once

in his life. On this point Tertullian is explicit, and he prob-

ably records the discipline that was then in vigor: "Piget

secundae, immo iam ultimae spei subtexere mentionem. . . .

Collocavit in vestibulo paenitentiam quae pulsantibus pate-

faciat, sed iam semel quia iam secundo; sed amplius nunquam,

quia proxime frustra." 1 If then the sinner falls again after

his reconciliation by the bishop, the Church does not allow

him to take up again the exercises of penance. These should

be performed, publicly and officially, only once.2

This is a first and important restriction: here is another.

There are three kinds of sins which, of course, must be con-

fessed and for which satisfaction must be made, but the for-

giveness of which the Church, herself does not grant and re-

serves to God: apostasy, fornication or adultery, and murder.

Although Tertullian mentions this exception only in his De

pudicitia, on the occasion of the decree of Callistus, it is evi-

dent, from what he says of it, that the exception was madeat Rome and in Africa before that decree and that, at the time

when he was writing, it was still maintained there as regards

murder and apostasy.3 We ought to distinguish, he observes,

two kinds of sins: some pardonable; others unpardonable;some non ad mortem, others ad mortem, according to St. John

(i John, s16

).4 The former of which he gives instances

1 De pawit., 7, pp. 656, 657.'

* Tertullian does not speak at all of private penance and absolution.1 De pudiMa, 5, p. 800,* De pudic., 2, p. 796,


can be forgiven by the bishop and "per exoratorem patris

Christum;"1 among the latter, TertuUian includes "homi-

cidium, idololatria, fraus, negatio, blasphemia, utique et

moechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi dei,"2

although in practice the list was made up only of idolatry

(or apostasy), fornication (or adultery) and murder.3 For

these sins, he remarks, penance must be made: however, their

forgiveness is in the hands 'of God alone: "Haec errim erit

paenitentia quam et nos deberi quidem agnoscimus multo

magis, sed de venia deo reservamus." 4 He who has become

guilty of them can and must groan and bemoan himself; and

yet the Church will not replace him in the communicatio ecclesi-

astica;* Christ, whose prayer brings about the ordinary

sinner's reconciliation, will not pray for him: "horum ultra

exorator non erit Christus." 6 Not that this penance is to be

useless and unprofitable: on the contrary, by performing it,

the culprit renders to God the beginning or seed of forgiveness :

that peace which the Church will not restore him here below,

God Himself will give him back one day.7

Still, after all, it

remains true that during his life he will not obtain his recon-

ciliation from the Church.

Is it because the Church has not the power to remit that

kind of sins? Even after his becoming a Montanist, Tertullian

does not absolutely refuse her that power .8 With greater reason,

the true Church and the Pope shall claim it for themselves,

1 De pudic., 18, p. 834; 19, P- 838.2 De pudic.j 19, p. 838.8 De pudic., 5, p. 800.4 De pudic., 19, p. 835.6 De pudic., i, p. 794; 18, p. 834; 19, P- 835.6 De pudic., 19, p. 838.7 "Et si pacem He non metit, apud dominum seminat. Nee amittet, sed prae-

parat fructum. Non vacabit ab emolument, si non vacaverit ab officio" (Depudic., 3, p. 797). ,

8 De pudic., ai, pp. 842, 843.


as we shall see later on. If then they do not use it, it is because

they think it inopportune to do so. Their abstention is anecclesiastical and disciplinary abstention, not one imposedby divine law. The decree of CaUistus, of which a few wordsnow have to be said, shbws this conclusively.

&

It is easy to understand the painful situation in which

renegades, fornicatorsf

and murderers were placed by the

discipline just described. Penitents, they had to remain such

all their lives, without any hope to reenter the communion of

the Church. Many weak souls were probably disheartened

at such a prospect, and neglected a penance which seemed to

come short of its purpose. This was likely for we do not

know the exact circumstances in which it took place the

reason which at the beginning of the third century, broughtinto the discipline a mitigation of which Pope CaUistus wasthe author.

The decree which promulgated this relaxation is known to

us only through TertuUian and perhaps through the author

of the Philosophoumena. According to the former, it enacted

in substance that henceforth fornicators and adulterers

should undergo only a temporary penance, and, after its ac-

complishment, might, like ordinary sinners, be absolved andrestored to the communion: "Adimi quidem peccatoribus, sed

maxime carne pollutis communicationem, sed ad praesens,restituendam scilicet ex paenitentiae ambitu, secundum illam

clementiam dei quae mavult peccatoris paenitentiam quammortem." 1 CaUistus himself gave them the absolution of

their faults: "Ego et moechiae et fornicationis delicta paeni-tentia functis dimitto;"

2 and while, to justify the opportunityof his measure, he recalled various reasons drawn from Scrip-

ture, in order to prove its authoritative character, he alleged

merely the power of the keys entrusted to St. Peter and com-

1 De pvdfa, 18, pp. 833, 834,a De pudic*, i, p. 792,

23

municated to his successors: "Super hanc petram aedificabo

ecclesiam meam, tibi dabo claves regni caelestis, vel quaecum-

que alligaveris vel soiveris in terra erunt alligata vel soluta in

caelis . . . Idcirco praesumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et

alligandi potestatem, id est ad omnem ecclesiam Petri propin-

quam."1

Moreover, the Pope acknowledged in martyrs or confessors

a similar power of reconciliation.2 In what did this powerexactly consist? Tertullian speaks of it, as if the martyrscould, without the bishop's intervention, purely and simplyabsolve the culprit and reinstate him in the communion.8

However, it seems strange that at Rome, where, as weshall say later on, the confessors were denied almost anyqualification in the reconciliation of the lapsi, such a great

privilege should have been acknowledged as theirs, underCallistus. Probably, Tertullian's words are not to be taken

literally, and the power in question seems to be simply the

faculty of granting to sinners letters of recommendation and

communion, which had to be ratified by the bishop.

Finally, the Pope's decree probably contained a last provi-

sion, mentioned by the Philosophoumena:4 in case that bishops,

priests and deacons should commit one of the three faults

ad mortem, they were not to be deposed from their charge:Et eTr&r/eo-Tro? dpdpTOt, re, el Kal Trpbs Bdvarov, ^77 Selv tcaraTi-

Oeo-dai (IX, 12). This measure had been taken no doubt,to safeguard in the eyes of the faithful the dignity of theecclesiastical order. Actually it suppressed public penancefor the clergy.

1 De pudic., 21, p. 843.2 De pudic.) 22, pp. 844-846.

Y'Aliiad metalla confugiunt et inde communicators revertuntur . . .

Christus in martyre est, ut moechos et fornicatores martyr absolvat" <Depudic., 22, pp. 845, 846).

4 The treatise of Tertullian De pudieitia, perhaps mutilated at the enddoes not mention it.

QUESTION OF PENANCE 345

These were the contents of Callistus' decree, as far as wecan judge. It was a measure of timely condescension: the

Pope's enemies represented it as the expression of a laxity

beyond forgiveness and a genuine usurpation of power. Ter-

tullian not only recriminates, he disputes; he calls into ques-tion not only the wisdom of the act, but also the Pope's author-

ity to enact it. No doubt, as well as any other bishop, Cal-

listus has the right to 'absolve the leviora delicta 'a powerwhich his adversary acknowledges implicitly,

1 but he can-

not remit the delicta mortatia? The words said to Peter,

Tertullian continues, were for Hm alone and cannot be ex-

tended in general to his successors.3 God alone can remit

sins, and although He has imparted this power to the Church,

yet He has done it with this restriction, that she should not

use it for the sins ad mortem: "Potest ecclesia donare delic-

tum, the Spirit says, sed non faciam ne et alia delin-

quant."4 In any case, supposing that the Church should

exercise that power, she would do it, not through Episcopacyand the official hierarchy, but through those spiritual men to

whom the Holy Ghost might grant the charism and gift

thereof: "Et ideo ecdesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia

spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus presby-terorum. Domini erim, non famuli est ius et arbitrium, dei

ipsius, non sacerdotis." 5 It seems that by these last words,

the Montanist Tertullian withdraws what he has first allowed,and sees in that power to absolve, not a regular function of

Episcopacy, but the effect of a special charism granted to a

certain Site.

1 De pudictiia, 18, p. 834.* By these two words leviora and mortaMa, we should understand not the

venial and mortal sins, as we distinguish them now, but the sins non ad mortemand ad mortem.

8 De pudic., ax, p. 843.4De'pudic., ax, pp. 842, 843.

5 De pwLic., 21, p. 844,


As to martyrs, Tertullian denies them any power to absolve

sinners and to restore them to the ecclesiastical communion.

They could do it, he observes, only by dying for them, througha substitutio vicaria, as Jesus Christ died for us; and this is

impossible.1 Personal martyrdom alone, in as much as

it is a second Baptism, can purify and reconcile the culprit.2

Tertullian and the author of the Philosophoumena were not

the only ones to resist at first the disciplinary change intro-

duced by Callistus. We see from a letter of St. Cyprian (LV,

21), that several African bishops continued for some time to

refuse forgiveness to fornicators and adulterers. Others on

the contrary accepted the mitigation, and the Church of

Africa was divided. However, this division did not last, for

the Bishop of Carthage speaks of it as a thing of the past.

The time was to come when the discipline was to be madestill less rigorous, and the indulgence granted for the sins of

the flesh, extended to apostasy.

2. - The Question of Penance in Africa. Novatianism.8

This new mitigation was brought about by the persecutionof Decius. That persecution, which began towards the endof the year 249 or at the beginning of the year 250, caused in

the African Church numerous and deplorable defections.

Many Christians, listening to the Emperor's commands,

1 De pudic.j 22, p. 846,2 De pudic.j 22, p. 846.3 Sources: The letters of St. Cyprian, edit. HARTEL. The anonymous trea-

tise Ad Novatianum, in the edition of St. Cyprian, by HARTEL, vol. Ill, orP. L.j HI. Works: The works on Novatian and on St. Cyprian, and particu-

larly: C. GOTZ, Die Busslehre Cyprians, Konigsberg, 1895. K. MtiiXER, DieBussinstitution in Karthago unter Cyprian, in the Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch.,XVI, 1895-1896. P. BATIPFOL, Etudes d'Histoire et de Theologie positive, ist

series, 3rd edit., Paris, 1904. L. CHABAUER, Les Lapsi dans VEgUsed'Afriqueau temps de saint Cyprien, Lyons, 1904,


actually sacrificed to idols (sacrificati) ; others, to protect

themselves, bought with money or obtained from some com-

missaries' obliging kindness, certificates attesting that theyhad sacrificed, although they had not done so: these were

called libellatici.

However, as early as towards the end of 250, there was a

relaxing of rigor in the persecution of Christians. Before the

perfect calming of the storm, lapsi, of various categories,

flocked to the confessors and martyrs, to get from them letters

of communion (libelli pads), which they might present to the

priests and thus be immediately reconciled to the Church.

Now, while among the confessors some were worthy of

admiration, others too were more or less trustworthy and of

a doubtful prudence: they distributed indiscriminately these

letters of reconciliation, and aimed at usurping the bishop's

power, or at least at compelling him to follow their own views

in the line of conduct to be adopted in regard to apostates.

It was then that St. Cyprian intervened.'

Although driven

from his Church by the persecution (250 spring of 251),

he still continued to rule it by means of his letters. Two

questions came up before his mind: first, could the Church

and should the Church absolve the lapsi from the crime of

apostasy, as Callistus had absolved adulterers and fornicators,

and on what conditions? Then what authority and what

part in this work of reconciliation were to be assigned to the

martyrs and confessors?

In the letters written from his exile, St. Cyprian does not

treat ex professo the first question: he postpones its full

solution to the future when religious peace will allow properreflection and consideration.1 He hints, however, that he

regards the reconciliation of the lapsi as possible and per-

haps timely: he warns the priests and deacons to keep up and

iEp. XV.


rekindle in the guilty trust in God's mercy.1

Nay, he deter-

mines that if a lapsus has received from the martyrs a letter

of communion and is in danger of death, he shall, without

waiting for the bishop's return, make public penance before a

priest, or in the absence of a priest before a deacon; and

that hands shall be laid upon him that he may go to God in

that peace the martyrs have asked for him.2 But what St.

Cyprian does not accept, nay, what he absolutely condemns

is that on the mere recommendation of the martyrs and on

the mere sight of their letter of reconciliation, without any

previous penance, without exomologesis and laying of the

bishop's hand, the lapsi that are in good health should be

admitted to communion.8 He looks upon this as an abuse

which he cannot tolerate.

As to the martyrs' rights in this matter he acknowledges

only one, viz., that of recommending the lapsi to the bishopand of begging for their reinstatement; but they cannot re-

quire and still less perform themselves that reconciliation.4

Moreover he wishes that in their libetti pads they mention

not whole groups of persons, but distinct individuals, desig-

nated by name, that have already made a penance almost

sufficient.6

Of course, these decisions of the Bishop of Carthage, although

1Ep. xvm, 2.

2Ep. xvm, i.

3 "Nam cum in minoribus peccatis agant peccatores paenitentiam iusto

tempore, et secundum disciplinae ordinem ad exomologesim variant, et permanus impositionem episcopi et cleri ius communicationis accipiant, mine,crudo tempore, persecutione adhuc perseverante, nondum restituta ecdesiae

ipsius pace, ad communicationem admittuntur, et offertur nomine eorum, et

nondum paenitentia acta, nondum exomologesi facta, nondum manu eis abepiscopo et clero imposita, eucharistia illis datur, cum scriptum sit: Quiederit panem aut biberit calicem Domini indigne reus erit corporis et sanguinisDomini" (Ep. XVI, 2; cf. Ep. XV, i).

*Ep. XV, i; cf. XVn, i.


provisional, failed to please a certain number of those whomthey concerned. Some confessors became more haughty than

ever;1 the lapsi claiming their reconciliation no more as a

favor, but as a right, stirred up in some cities real riots, andfound some members of the clergy who pushed kindness so

far as to support their pretensions.2

St. Cyprian had to

recall that it belonged to bishops to rule the Church.3

At the same time, he wrote to the Roman clergy, then

without a bishop since the martyrdom of St. Fabian

(January 20, 250), laying before them his own view of

the subject, and asking them to give it their support byembracing it themselves.4

The answer of the Roman dergy, which was drawn up byNovatian, was in keeping with St. Cyprian's wishes. It is the

XXXth letter.5 It stated that the line of conduct followed

at Rome in regard to the lapsi was like that of the Bishop of

Carthage. The guilty were not abandoned to themselves,

but the utmost was done to make them realize the serious

nature of their fault, and penance was required from them (6).

For those who were in peril of death, after fulfilling as muchas possible the exomologesis, they were helped "caute et

soUicite, Deo ipso sciente quid de talibus faciat, et qualiter

iudicii sui examinet pondera, nobis tamen anrie curantibus ut

nee pronam nostrain improbi homines laudent facilitatem,

nee vere paenitentes accusent nostram quasi duram crudelita-

tem" (8). Another letter of the same clergy tells us, more-

over, that communion was granted to them. 6 As to the con-

fessors and martyrs they were themselves refused the privilege

iEp. xxm.

*Ep. XVIy i, 2; XX, 3; XXVII, 3^ XXK, 1-3; XXXV.Ep. xxxm, i.

*Ep. xx, 3; xxvn;

'Cf. Ep. LV, 5.

Ep. vm, 2.


to reconcile the lapsi;1

they were allowed at most earnestly

to beg peace for them*

So, Novatian and his colleagues approved on the whole St.

Cyprian's views.2 These were solemnly sanctioned by the

Council which met at Carthage in April 251, after the Bishop's

return, and was attended by many prelates.3 The following

decisions were adopted. The libelli pads granted by the

martyrs would be taken into no account, and the case of each

one of the lapsi, examined individually.4 The libellatici had

to be distinguished from the sacrificati. The former, less

guilty, would be admitted to reconciliation one by one. 5 Thelatter had to do penance all their lifetime; but they would be

reconciled at the time of death so that they might departfrom this world with the consolation of peace and communion:

"illis, sicut placuit, subvenitur." * frSacrificatis in exitu

subveniri . . . cum solacio pads et communications abs-

cedit."7 Not indeed that the Bishop thus intended to deter-

mine and settle beforehand God's judgment: for He Himself

would decide whether or not the penance had been sufficient

and earnest, and would confirm or modify the sentence of the

Church. 8 As to those who refused to perform the exomologesis,

they should not be reconciled even at the approach of death,

,2.

2 Let it be remarked, though, that in the Roman letter (i) no mention is

made of the imposition of the hand for the reconciliation of the lapsi: a silence

from which we cannot infer that the rite was not practised; (2) the reliance

placed on the efficacy of the forgiveness granted by the Church is less than in

Africa (we should not forget that it is Novatian, a rigorist, who acts as secre-

tary); (3) finally, less importance is attached to the privilege of the martyrs.*Ep. LV, 6.

*E#. LV, 6, 13, 17.

8

Ep. LV, 14-17: "examinatis causis singulorum, libellaticos interim aft-

mitti"

(ibid., 17).

J^.LV,i3.7Et- LV, 17.


although they asked it then: for it is probable that fear alone,

and not sorrow, prompted them to act.1

Finally the clerics,

bishops, priests, or deacons who were lapsi would be deposed,and thus being brought down to the rank of the laity, theywould pass through the exercises of ordinary penance, with-

out any hope of being reinstated in their charge:2 a decision,

observes St. Cyprian, which had been taken by Pope Cornelius

and the bishops of the whole world.3

The Council which enacted these measures came to a close

in June 251. But the malcontents were already organized.

They had assembled around the priest Novatus and the

deacon Felicissimus, both strongly opposed to St. Cyprian.4

Excommunicated by the latter,5 Novatus went to Rome and

became a friend of the priest Novation who was apparentlyto succeed, as Bishop of Rome, the martyr Fabian: however,his hope was not fulfilled: Cornelius was chosen (March 5,

251). This exasperated Novatian who gathered some priests

and a certain number of the faithful and of the confessors;

Novatus worked in the same direction; and a schism broke

out. Novatian was consecrated bishop by three dissenting

prelates and began to organize his church. 6

From what precedes, we might expect that Novatian's

party should, under the influence of Novatus, declare itself

for an indulgence in regard to the lapsi greater than that of

St. Cyprian and of his Council. The very contrary happened.Novatian was inclined to rigoristic views of which we find

traces in the XXXth letter written by him and imposed,

them on his followers. He declared that it was unlawful to

*Ep. LV, 23.

*Ep. LXVII, 6; cf. LIX, 10.

1Ep. LXVII, 6; cf. EUSEBIUS, Hist, eccks., VI, 43, 10.

4Ep. XLI, i; XXIII, i, 2; LIE, 2; UX, i, 9.

; Ep. XLH; cf. XLI, i.

6Ep. LV, 24.


hold intercourse with the Heathen, viz., the lapsi; that no

penance should be granted to them, nor, supposing they would

perform sp6ntaneously its exercises, should they get forgive-

ness, even at the time of death;1 that besides, such a penance

was useless and could not save them, since for them there

was no more hope of peace and mercy.2 Thus Novatian

taught that apostasy was a sin which the Church cannot,

and which God Himself apparently does not, forgive; and

yet, he does not seem to have gone back to the past nor to

have called into question the legitimacy of the pardon grantedto the moechi, since St. Cyprian draws therefrom an argument

against him in his LVth letter, 20, 26, 27.

Novatian's error had been condemned beforehand in the

Council of Carthage: it was the object of another condemna-

tion in the Council of Rome, held in the fall of the year 251,

which was attended, according to Eusebius (Hist, eccks., VI,

43, 2), by sixty bishops. The antipope was excommunicated.

The whole Christian world, with a few exceptions, ac-

quiesced in that condemnation.3 But Novatian exerted

himself in such a way that he was successful in holding his

ground and in founding in a great many places Christian

communities that shared his error. They continued to sub-

sist for a long time and lived side by side with the Catholic

communities, like them having their own hierarchy of bish-

ops, priests and deacons, often sharing in their persecutionsfor the faith and differing from them only on the question of

penance.

Moreover, Novation's followers seem soon to have pushedmuch further than their leader himself the consequences of

*Ep. LV, 22, 27.

2Ep* LV, 22; EITSEB., Hist, ecdes., VI, 43, i; the anonymous treatise Ad

Novatianum, 12, 13.8 ST. CYPKIAN, Ep. LXVIH, 2; EUSEB., Hist, eccks., VI, 44, i; 46, 3, 4;

vn, $, i.


his rigorism. As we have seen, though the latter denied for-

giveness to the l&psi, still he granted it to the fornicators and

adulterers. The day came when, persecutions having either

ceased or at least abated, there were no more apostates, and

when, consequently, the schism had no longer a reason of

existence. However, efforts continued to be made to justify

it, by giving emphasis to its tendencies and declaring that all

the sins ad mortem, fornication and murder "included, were

beyond the Church's power of reconciliation. We may infer

this apparently from the Tractatus Origenis (X, p. 112, 19, fL),

and certainly from the treatise De paenitentia (I, 2, 5; 3, 10)

of St. Ambrose, the letters of St. Pacian to Sympronian,1 and

the Qwestiones ex veteri et now Testamento of the Pseudo-

Augustine.2

St. Padan sums up the doctrine of the Novatian-

ists in these few words: "Quod post baptismum paenitere non

liceat, quod mortale peccatum Ecclesia donare non possit,

immo quod ipsa pereat recipiendo peccantes."3 The testi-

monies of Philastrius (De haeresibus, 82), St. Augustine (De

haeresibus, 38), Socrates (Hist, eccles., I, 10; VH, 25), Theo-

doret (Eaeretic. fabul., HI, 5) and St. Nilus (Epist., Kb. HI,

243) agree with these statements.

However, besides the historical details with which the

controversies just exposed supply us as to the discipline of

penance, there arose also two advantages from a dogmatic

standpoint: on one hand, a more distinct realization on the

part of the Church of her power to forgive always and every-, where all kinds of sins she had herself limited for a while

the use of that power; she widened, in due time, the exercise

of the same power; on the other hand, the clear view that

the ecclesiastical hierarchy alone is the depositary of that

power, and is amenable to itself and to itself alone, for the

i P. L., X3H, col. 1063.* P. L. t XXXV, col. 2307.

Ep. m, i, P. L., xni, coi. 1063.


application of it which it thinks opportune to make. This

hierarchy had already triumphed in the afl&rmation of its

rights, over the pretensions of speculation and illuminism

embodied respectively in Gnosticism and in Montanism;now it triumphed over those of pseudo-sanctity represented

by some confessors and by the partisans of an exaggerated

rigorism. A bishop had appeared, who combined in an un-

common degree with the gift of ruling, the consciousness of

his authority, and who had pledged all his energy and learningto secure that triumph. His name, as we have seen, was

Cyprian.

CHAPTER XI

ST. CYPRIAN AND CTE BAPTIS&IAL CONTROVERSY

i. St. Cyprian's Theology.1

ST. CYPRIAN is not a speculator, nor a theologian properlyso called: of all theological notions, that of the Church is

about the only one he has somewhat deeply investigated:

even in this, he is not altogether original As has been just

noticed, he is chiefly a man of government and action, a bishopof the type which St. Ambrose and St. Leo are one day to

reproduce, going into doctrinal difficulties only in as muchas the instruction of the people demands it, and watchingabove all to keep up peace in the minds, that all the energies

of the soul may be concentrated on interior reform. Althoughan admirer and a disciple of TertulUan, he is as calm and well-

balanced as his master is excessive and violent. His eloquenceis clothed as with the toga and always preserves somethingsolemn and stately. Yet, precisely because of that strongand calm self-possession, his influence on his contemporaries

1 The edition quoted is that of W. HARTEL, S. Thascl CaecUii Cypriani opera

omnia, Vienna, 1868-1871. Works: P. MONCEAUX, Histoire litteravre de

VAfrigue ckr&tienne, II, Paris, 1902, H. LECLERCQ, L'Afrique cfottienne, I,

Paris, 1904. E. WH, BENSON, Cyprian, his life, his times, his work, London, 1897.

K. G. Gorz, Das Ckristentum Cyprians, Giessen, 1896. 0. RTTSCHL, Cyprianvon Karthago und die V&rfassung der Kirche, Gottingen, 1885. J. DELAROCEELLE,L'idte de VEglise dans Saint Cyprien, in the Revue d'Hist. et de Litter, religieuses,

1, 1896. K. H. WIRTH, Der Verdienst Begriff in der christlichen Kirche, II, Der

Verdienst Begriff bei. Cyprian, Leipsic, 1901. P. BATUTOL, L'Eglise Naiss. et

k Catholicism, 1909, pp. 399-4831 especially pag.es 458 *nd fo&


and on the whole Church of old was immense. As the see of

Rome was "the see of Peter," so also that of Carthage was,

in the fourth century, "the see of Cyprian."1 The peculiar

spirit of Rome and of the West displayed itself in that

practical genius and in that extraordinary skill for the direc-

tion of men.

We may pass by the Trinitarian views of St. Cyprian, and

even the few Christological indications which he has groupedin the second book of his Testimonia ad Quirinum (i, 3, 6, 8-n,14) and which reproduce substantially Tertullian's teaching.

BGs soteriology is also rather undeveloped: although the

notion of substitute vicaria is set forth,2 and the author has

drawn a striking description8 of the effects of Redemption.

The true centre of his theology is the doctrine of the

Church.

Considered in her visible elements, the Church, St. Cypriantells us, is the gathering of the bishop and his flock, of the

bishop, the clergy and the faithful.4 Considered in her mysti-cal state, she is the spouse of Jesus Christ to whom she must

give spiritual children.5 Her function consists in being the

depositary of the heavenly blessings, of the grace, of the treas-

ures brought by Redemption, and at the same time of the

sanctifying power of Jesus Christ, so that these can be foundin none but in her. 6 Hence the necessity to belong to that

Church. Whosoever departs from her "vitam non tenet et

salutem;"7 whosoever rejects her rejects Christ whose spouse

she is.8 "Habere non potest Deumpatrem qui ecclesiam non

1 ST. OPTATUS, n, 10.J De lapsis, 17; Epist. I, 5.1 De opere et eleemosynis, i.

*Epp. LXVI, 8; XXXDI, i.

* De catkol. cedes, wit., 4-6; Ep. LXXIV, 6.

Epp. LXXHI, 7, 10, ii ; LXXI, i.

7 De cathol. ecdes. unit., 6; Ep. LXJX, 4,

Ep. ni, i.

ST. CYPRIAN'S THEOLOGY 357

habet matrem." 1 She is the ark in which alone we can be

saved and purified.2

The fundamental character of the Church thus conceived

is unity. St. Cyprian wrote a whole treatise the De catholi-

cae ecclesiae unitate to prove and explain it. The true

Church, he observes, is one, because there cannot be several

true Churches.8 But she is above all internally one, because

among her members, pastors and faithful, there must be the

bond of common faith, of common charity, and also that of

the subjection of the faithful to the pastors*4 This unity is

typified by the seamless robe of Jesus Christ;5by the unity

of the Eucharistic bread and wine made up of the multitude

of the grains of wheat and of the grapes that have respectively

produced them;6

it is pointed out chiefly by our Lord buildingthat Church from the very beginning on Peter alone, and then

bestowing first on Peter alone the power He was later on to

grant to the other Apostles, to make known to us, by this

symbolic action, the unity He intended to have in His Church:

"Super unum aedificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omni-

bus post resurrectionem suam parem^potestatem tribuat . . .

tamen, ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originemab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. . . . Exordiumab unitate proficiscitur, ut ecclesia Christi una monstretur." 7

To reject that unity is to reject faith, the faith of the Father

and of the Son, the law of God, salvation; it is to be a stranger,

a profane, an enemy.8 It behooves especially the bishops to

preserve and maintain it among themselves, in order to show

1 De cathol. eccles. unit., 6.

2Epp. LXDC, ^ LXXIV, u; cf. Firmilian's Letter, LXXV, 15.

8 De cathol. eccles. unit., 4.4 De unit., 6, 8, 10, 12.6 De unit., 7.

Epp. LXIU, 13; LDC, 5.7 De unit., 4; Epp. LXXHI, 7; LIX, 14.8 De unit., 4, 6.


that Episcopacy is one and undivided (ut episcopatum

quoque ipsum unum atque indivisum probemus),1 and also

because the unity of the Church results from union amongthem and with them: . . . "quando ecclesia quae catholica

lina est scissa non sit neque divisa, sed sit utique connexa et

cohaerentium sibi invicem sacerdotum glutino copulata."2

This Church, as we have seen, includes the bishop, a clergy

and the faithful; but she is built upon the bishops, and theyit is that rule and govern her: such is the divine ordinance:

"Inde per temporum et successionum vices episcoporumordinatio et ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut ecclesia super episcopos

constituatur, et omnis actus ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos

gubernetur. . . . Cum hoc ita divina lege fundatum sit,

miror, etc*" 3 Each particular Church is, as it were, summed

up in her bishop, so that when one ceases to be with him, he

ceases to be in the Church: "Unde scire debes episcopum in

ecclesia esse etecclesiam in episcopo, et si qui cum episcopo non

sit in ecclesia non esse." 4Bishops are the successors of the

Apostles: the latter were the bishops of old, and the present

bishops are the Apostles of to-day: "apostolos, id est episco-

pos:" 5 and just as the Apostles formed only one Apostolic

college, and only one Apostolic power was shared by aU in

solidum, so also all bishops taken together form only one body,and there is only one Episcopate, of which all the membersof Episcopacy partake: "Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis

in solidum pars tenetur;" 6 and if one of them comes short of

his task, the others must come to the rescue of his flock.7

1 De unit., 5; Ep. XLV, 3.*Ep. LXVI, 8.

8Ep. XXXm, i; cf. Epp., in, 3; XLVHI, 4; LV, 8; LXVI, i, 8.

4Ep. LXVI, 8.

Epp. HI, 3; XLV, 3; cf. Firmitian's Letter, LXXV, 16, and the Senten-tiae episcoporum, 79.

De unit., 3; Ep. LXVm, 3.

.

7Ep. LXVIH, 3.


Thus it is that St. Cyprian conceives the Church: viz., as

a vast society, one in her faith, and ruled by a senate of bishops

making up only one body. Moreover, does he assign a leader

to those bishops? Does he ascribe a head to that senate?

Does he admit a higher authority which establishes and pre-

serves that unity of which he is so anxious? In a word, does

he acknowledge in the bishop of Rome a primacy of juris-

diction among and over his colleagues?

There is no doubt that, on the occasion of the Baptismal

controversy, Pope Stephen did claim for himself that primacyas St. Peter's successor and acted as the bishop of bishops.

Even against many Councils, he required obedience under

pain of excommunication.1 Some modifications introduced

into the primitive text of the De catholicae ecclesiae unitate

might perhaps prove that St. Cyprian acknowledged on the

whole the legitimate character of these pretensions of the

bishop of Rome, were it shown conclusively as some have

recently endeavored to do, with some success that these

modifications come from the author himself.2 But, setting

aside these various readings or interpolations, it is manifest

that St. Cyprian does not regard the see of Rome as an ordi-

nary see. It is Peter's see, and the bishops of Rome are

Peter's successors.3 Now the Church was founded first on

Peter and on Peter alone;4 and this fact, as we have seen,

has a symbolical meaning: it marks the unity which Jesus

Christ intended to exist in His Church, and of which the Church

of Rome thus becomes the centre and starting-point. This is

1Ep. LXXI, 3; Sententiae episcoporum, Proemium.

2 Cf. J. CHAPMAN, Les interpolations dans le traits de saint Cyprien swr

Vuntie de VEgUse, in the Revue benSdictine, vol. XIX, XX, 1902, 1903. E. W.WATSON, The interpolations in St. Cyprian's De unitate ecclesiae, in the Journal

of TheoL Studies, vol. V, 1904. P. BATDBTOL, op. cit., p. 44-447-*Ep. LV, 9.

4 De unit., 4; Epp. XLIH, 5; LEC, 7; LX\tt, 7; LXXI, 3; LXXIH, 7:

cf. Firmilian's Letter, LXXV, 16.

24


why that Church is the chief Church, whence arose the unity

of the Episcopate: "ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam

principalem unde unitas sacerdotails exorta est;"1 the

Church communion with which establishes one in the unity

and charity of the Catholic Church:" communicationem tu-

am, id est, catholicae ecclesiae unitatem pariter et caritatem." 2

The centre of the unity is at Rome; the communion with

that centre constitutes and shows the unity of the Church.

But Cyprian did not go further, or, if he did go further, he did

not draw, in the Baptismal controversy, the consequences of

his principles. In practice, he had acknowledged Stephen's

right to intervene in the affairs of Gaul, and, after deposingthe Bishop of Aries, Marcianus, to have another one chosen

in his stead;

3 in theory, he refuses to the bishop of Rome

any higher power that may "be needed to maintain the unityof which he is the centre, the many threads of which are, as

it were, all gathered in his hand. Cyprian emphasizes whathe has said, viz., that, although the Church is founded on

Peter, yet all the Apostles received the same power and dignityas he did: "Hoc erant utique et ceteri apostoli quod fuit

Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis."4

Hence, he concludes, Peter contrarily to Stephen did

not ascribe the primacy to himself ("ut diceret se primatumtenere,") nor did he require obedience from the newcomers,from St. Paul in particular.

5 There is, in the Church, no"episcopus episcoporum," who has the right tyrannically to

impose his will on his colleagues. Each bishop rules his owndiocese in all independence and is amenable to God alone:

he can no more be judged by his equals than judge them;all must wait for the judgment of Jesus Christ. This is why,St. Cyprian concludes, we are not allowed, in the Baptismal

iEp. LIX, 14.

*Ep. XLVUE, 3.

Ep. LXVni.s

Ep. LXXI, 3.


controversy, to break up fellowship with those that do not

share our views: "Neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopumse episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendinecessitatem collegas suos adigit, quando habeat omnis epis-

copus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae arbitrium pro-

prium, tamque iudicari ab alio non possit quam nee ipse possitalterum iudicare, sed expectemus universi iudicium Domininostri lesu Christi." 1

These statements, which savor of Episcopalianism, cause

wonder, as coming from a man so desirous of unity, whorealized so well the conditions of an effective government.

They may be explained, not only by the enthusiasm of polem-

ics, but also by the influence of Tertullian, whom St. Cyprianhad much studied, and by the fact that our author paid far

more attention to the unity of each particular Church, of

which the bishop is the centre, than to the unity of the uni-

versal Church. Moreover his deeds did not perfectly squarewith his theory, and it has been justly remarked that, bycentring in his hands, as he did, the government of the Church

of Africa, and preparing for Carthage the title of primatial

see, he had given to his declarations in behalf of Rome as the

centre of catholic unity, a practical comment which was not

lost, and which contributed to group more and more effectively

the Christian world around St. Peter's successor.

In St. Cyprian's theory, the Church is the depositary of the

power of Jesus Christ and the bestower of His graces. TheSacraments are therefore her Sacraments, and she alone can

confer them validly: we shall examine later on this subject,

and here consider merely the holy Doctor's teaching on each

Sacrament in particular.

Baptism is a second birth, the principle of salvation and

faith:2

it remits sins, sanctifies man and makes him God's

1 Senientiae episcoporum, proemium; Epp. LXXII, 3; LXXHI, 20.1 Ad Donatum, 4; De dominica oratione, 23; Ep, LXXm, 12.


temple.1 It must be imparted to children, and unlike circum-

cision, may be administered before the eighth day.2

By this

Baptism, children receive grace, just as well as adults, the

more so that having not sinned and being afflicted through

their birth from Adam only with the contagion of the former

death, they obtain the forgiveness, not of their own sins,

but of borrowed sins.3

However, the Baptism of water maybe replaced by martyrdom which also confers grace, nay a

more abundant and excellent grace: "in gratia maius, in

potestate sublirnius."4

To Baptism anointing (chrismatio) is added, that the neo-

phyte may have in him the grace of Christ. 5 This cere-

mony is the same as the one of which St. Cyprian speaksin his LXXIIIrd letter, 9, and which includes a prayer, the

laying on of the hand and the signaculum dominicum: all this,

to impart the Holy Ghost. It may be also the same rite as

the one used for the reconciliation of heretics, in which wefind the laying on of the hand and the anointing: "Non est

necesse ei venienti manum imponi ut spiritum sanctum con-

sequatur et signetur."6

Those who have been baptized receive, immediately after

their Baptism, the Eucharist. 7 To prepare the latter, winemixed with water is needed. 8 The Eucharist is "the holy

body of the Lord," which the lapsi profane, His body and

1Ep. Lxxin, 12.

2Ep. LXIV, 2.

8"Quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus piM peccavit,

nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primanativitate contraxit, qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipsofacilius accedit quod illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata" (Ei>*

LXIV, 5).4 Ad Fortunatum, praef., 4; Ep. LXXIII, 22.6Ep. LXX, 2.

cEp. LXXIH, 6.

*Ep. LXX, 2.

8Ep. LXIH, 2, 9.


blood.1 It is a sacrifice. St. Cyprian is one of the Fathers

that insisted most on this character, and his testimony de-

serves a special notice. The Eucharistic sacrifice, he says,

was first offered by Jesus Christ, the priest according to the

order of Melchizedek and in imitation of his sacrifice: now,it is offered, as a true and complete sacrifice, by men as

priests, who act "vice Christi," and do again what the Saviour

did (sacrificium verum et plenum, secundum quod ipsumChristum videat obtulisse).

2Besides, that sacrifice is the

same as the one on the Cross, and while we celebrate it, we

present to God the Redeemer's passion: "passio est enim

Domini sacrificium quod offerimus." 3 It is offered up for

penitent sinners and in their name,4 as well as for the dead.6

St. Cyprian's ideas on penance are known to us: however,we may add what he says of the necessity of confessing to

the bishop one's sins, nay one's interior and secret sins, andof receiving his pardon, after having made satisfaction: in

the first text, he refers to some Christians who had thoughtof apostatizing, though actually they had not done so: "Qui

quamvis nullo sacrificii aut libelli facinore constricti, quoniamtamen de hoc vel cogitaverunt, hoc ipsum apud sacerdotes

Dei dolenter et simpliciter confitentes exomologesim con-

scientiae faciant, animi sui pondus exponant," etc.6 "Con-

fiteantur singuli, quaeso vos, fratres, delictum suum, dumadmitti confessio eius potest, dum satisfactio et remissio

[facta] per sacerdotes apud Dominum grata est."7 We have

seen that in other passages, the Bishop of Carthage grants

that in danger of death, an ordinary priest, nay in his absence

1Ep. XV, i; LXIII, 4 ; De lapsis, 25,

2Ep. LXIII, 4, 14-

Ep. LXIII, 17; cf. 5, 9.4Ep. xvi, 2; xvn, 2.

8Ep. I, 2.

De lapsis, 28.7 De lapsis, 29.


a deacon, may administer the exomologesis, and lay the hand

on a penitent "in paenitentiam."x

St. Cyprian mentions often Order and the ordinations 2

which the bishop performed together with his presbyterium*

even the consecration of bishops, the rite of which is the

imposition of hands.4 As to marriage, he reproduces St.

Paul's teaching in regard to its indissolubility, and prohibi-

tion to unite with heathens.6

As the questions of government, so also those pertaining to

moral conduct naturally drew his attention, and to themhe devoted several writings. We may point out a few features

of his views. Our author is conscious of a corruption of humannature because of Adam's fault, and as we have seen, he seems

to lay borrowed sins to the charge of the infant just born.6

Yet he does not state his thought with precision, and even

declares elsewhere that we cannot become guilty for some-

body else: "Nee posse alium pro altero reum fieri."7 Faith

is free (credendi vel non credendi libertatem in arbitrio

positam) ;

8 but it is effective in the measure in which we

possess it.9 Christian Ethics include precepts and counsels.10

By practising both, we merit, in the true and proper meaningof the term: God becomes our debtor and He will pay Hisdebt: "Deum computat debitorem;" "Nusquam Dominusmeritis nostris ad praemium deerit." u On the contrary, whenwe neglect our duties, we become God's debtors, although

iEp. xvm, i.

*Ep. I, i; XXXVHI, 2; LXVI, i; LXVH, 6.

*Ep. xxxvm, 2.

*Ep. LXVII, 5.

8Testimonies, III, 62, 90; De lapsis, 6.

6Ep. LXIV, 5; Ad Donatum, 3; De opere et demos., z.

*Ep. LV, 27.

8Testimonies, III, 52.

9Testimonies, III, 42.

10 De hdbitu virginum, 23; cf. 3, 20, 22.u De opere et ekem., 265 cf. 9, 17, 23.


we can offer Him satisfaction by good works: "operibus iustis

Deo satisfied."l The last doctrinal statements naturally

recall Tertullian's ideas and phraseology.In regard to St. Cyprian's eschatology, it is quite simple.

He believes in the near end of the world and in the comingof Antichrist.2 In the LVth letter, 20, he seems to allude to a

purifying fire (purgari diu igne) ;on the other hand, how-

ever, he regards as eternal the torments of Hell, "aeterna

gehennae supplicia."3

We have already mentioned some of the anonymous treatises

ascribed to St. Cyprian and placed after his works (edit.

HARTEL, vol. III). Among the others, the Liber de rebaptis-

mate will have later on a special claim on our attention. The

writing Ad Novatianum merely reproduces against Novatian

the teaching of the Bishop of Carthage on penance. The short

discourse De akatoribus, against gamesters, probably the

work of some African bishop of the third century,4contains,

from a dogmatic standpoint, besides the affirmation of the

bishop's rights (1-4), merely a few details concerning the recep-

tion of the Eucharist (5). As to tlie treatise De montibus Sina

et Sion, which follows and may be a translation from the

Greek, it betrays in its author a bold allegorist, some of

whose interpretations are simply amazing (4). Moreover

Harnack 5 has expressed the opinion that Adoptianism is

taught in the work. Jesus would be the man, while Christ *

would be the eternal Son or the Holy Ghost in the man:

"Caro domioica a Deo patre lesu vocita est: Spiritus sanctus

1 De opere et deem., 5, 4; Epp. XXXV; LV, n; LIX, 13; LXIV, i; De

lapsis, 17, 34.2 De mortatitote, 25; De unU.

y 16; Ad Demetrianwn, 3-5; Ad ForUmatum,

praef.,i; E^.LIX,i8; LXI,4J LXm,i8; LXVH,7.*

. JJX, 18. ,.

4 Cf . MOFCEAUX, ffistwe HtMririre de I'Afrique cfofa, n, p. 112-115.* Lehrb, der D (?., 1, 676, note; History ofDogmaj vol. m, p,- 33.


qui de cado descendit Christus, id est unctus Dei vivi Deovocitus est. Spiritus carni mixtus lesus Christus" (4; cf,

13 :

"Spiritus sanctus Dei films.") However, this explanation

has been called in question,1 and a similar expression is found

in St. Cyprian.2

2. The Baptismal Controversy.3

We saw above with what careful solicitude St. Cyprianreserved to the Church the privilege of bestowing the grace

of Jesus Christ. This idea, pushed to the extreme, was to

lead him to regrettable errors in judging the value of the

Baptism given by heretics.

It is important to notice the practical character of the rise

of the question. Until Montanism, no heresy except

Marcionitism had formed an independent Church. All

these sects hid themselves in the widespread Church, and

their followers received irom her Baptism and Christian

initiation. If later on they recanted their errors and cameback to the true faith, they were reconciled by the laying on

of the hands in paenitentiam, or even by the anointing with

oil, the consignation viz., according to several authors, by Con-

firmation; as to their Baptism, it was not renewed, since theyhad received it from the true Church.

But after the heresies of Marcion, Montanus and others

had organized separate communities, it happened that the

Catholic Church saw now and then some applying to enter

her bosom, who had been baptized in those sects, whether

1SEEBERG, Lehrb. der D G., p. 124, note 2.

2 Quod idola non sint dti, n.1 Sources: The letters of St. Cyprian and of Firmilian, edit. HARTEL. The

Liber de rebaptismate, same edit., vol. III. Works: Those about St. Cyprian,and besides, H. GRISAR, Cyprians

"Oppositionskonzti" gegen Papst Stephan, in

the Zeitschr.f. Katk. Theol, V, 1881. J. ERNST, Zur Au/assung Cypricws witder Ketzertvufe, ibid., XVII, 1893. P. BATOTOL, op. cit. L. SALTED Les Rfrordinations, Paris, 1907, pp. 15 and foil

BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY 367

they were born therein or had come thereto directly fromHeathenism.

How should they be treated? Was this Baptism to be re-

garded as sufficient and were they to receive merely the im-

position of hands and the consignatio; or was their Baptismto be considered as void, and their Christian initiation, be

completely renewed?

It was in this practical form let it be observed that

the value of the Baptism of heretics came to be discussed.

What was to be done? True, this question implied a theoretical

question more general: is the faith of the minister (or of the

subject) needed for the validity and efficacy of the Sacrament?

However, this latter point of view always remained in the

background: this is why St. Cyprian and his followers mayhave seen as it seems they actually did in the whole

controversy nothing but a disciplinary question which did not

concern the integrity of faith nor deserve that the unity of the

Church should be sacrificed on its account either by schism or

by excommunication.

Anyhow, two customs were received in the Church duringthe third century, as to the topic now before us. The first, that

of Rome, followed also at Caesarea of Palestine and probablyat Alexandria, was not to renew the Baptism of heretics, but

merely to impart to them the laying on of the hands and the

consignatio;1 the second, that of Carthage and of Africa,

followed at Antioch and at Caesarea of Cappadocia, in Cilicia,

Galatia and neighboring provinces, was to regard that

Baptism as null, and to renew it. We are informed, in regard

to Rome by the Philosophoumena (IX, 12, p. 446) ,

2 and bythe affirmations of Pope Stephen always recalling the tradi-

tion of his Church; in regard to Caesarea of Palestine, by1 ST. CYSRIAN, Ep. LXXHI, 6.

1 The author tells us that under Callistus, for the first time, some were bold

enough to rebaptize.


Eusebius (Eccles. Hist., VII, chap. 2 and 3), who simply

qualifies the usage as ancient which prevailed later on; in

regard to Alexandria, by her Bishop, Dionysius, who, although

exhibiting more moderation than the Pope, still agrees with

Kirn after all.1 On the other hand, Tertullian had already

considered as void the Baptism of heretics,2 and St. Cyprian

appeals in behalf of the same views to the decisions of a

Council held about the year igS,3 under one of his predeces-

sors, Agrippinus.4 For Antioch and Syria, we have the testi-

mony of the Apostolical Constitutions (VI, 15; cf. Apostolical

Canons, 45, 46), which, although they appeared later on, yet

do not seem to have been tampered with on this point. Fi-

nally Firmilian of Csesarea (in Cappadocia)5 has not failed

to tell us what was the practice of his Church and that of the

neighboring provinces. The Councils of Iconium and Syn-nada in Phrygia, held about the years 230-235 and referred

to by Dionysius of Alexandria,6 had both declared themselves

against the Baptism conferred by heretics.

Such was the situation when the controversy began. In

Africa, notwithstanding the custom generally received,

1 St. Jerome (De mis illiistr., 69) says explicitly that St. Dionysius of Alex-

andria was of St. Cyprian's mind. But it is difficult to reconcile this statementwith the fragments of Dionysius preserved by Eusebius, with the part of peace-maker he strove to play in this affair, and his own way of acting. St. Basil,on the contrary, affirms that St. Dionysius acknowledged the Baptism of the

Montanists: at which he wonders (Epist. CLXXXVIII, can. i, P. G., XXXII,col. 664, 668). There could be no doubt on the doctrinal agreement of Diony-sius and Stephen, were the fragments (a Syriac translation) ascribed to Diony-sius and published by C. L. FELTOE (The Letters and other Remains of Dionysiusof Alexandria, pp. 48, 49) authentic; but that authenticity is quite doubtful.

2Delaptismo, 15; cf. De piidicitia, 19.

3 This is the date adopted by H. Leclercq, UAfrique chrttienne, II, p. 344;cf. I, p. 32; and by P. Monceaux, Histoire litt^raire de VAfrigue chrttienne, II,

pp. 19, 20.

* ST. CYPRIAN, Epp. LXXI, 4; LXXIH, 3.5Bp. LXXV, 7, 19.

8EtrsEBros, Eccles. Hist., VII, 7, 5.


scruples became manifest, almost everywhere. Three times

during the year 255, St. Cyprian had to answer consultations

on that subject.1 He did it always by affirming that heretics

and schismatics had no power to give Baptism: "Didmusomnes omnino haereticos et schismaticos "M1 habere potestatisac iuris." 2

However, he was conscious that the oppositioncame from Rome and that the Roman custom was the chief

objection which worked on the minds of Christians. To do

away with the resistance, he determined to elicit a decisive

explanation. In May 256, he gathered at Carthage a council

of 71 Bishops, had them approve his conclusions and wrote to

the Pope his LXXIInd letter, in which he maintained (3) the

right of each bishop to solve this question for once and all,

according to his liking. He sent to Rome at the same time

his LXXth and his LXXIst letter, this last one to Quintus.The Pope was then Stephen (May 12, 254- Aug. 2, 257). A

certain coldness, brought on by previous discussions, alreadyexisted between him and St. Cyprian; and it could hardly be

decreased by the tone of Cyprian's letter and especially bythe tenor of his LXXIst letter which was simply offensive

for the Pope.3 No wonder therefore that, according to the

account left by Firmilian of Caesarea, Stephen received

Cyprian's messengers quite ungraciously and very harshly

*Epp. LXDC, LXX, LXXI.

1Ep. LXIX, i.

8 Some authors thiny and say that, although St. Cyprian made a mistake

on the subject of the dispute, yet, as far as proceedings go, he played the better

part. Perhaps they might be less peremptory in their opinion, if they would ob-

serve that, as we do not possess the Pope's answer, we know what was his wayof acting, after all, only through his adversaries, St. Cyprian and Firmilian.

Now, as we wfll see later on, the latter displays in his LXXVth letter an un-

common violence; as to the former, the fact of sending to Stephen his letter to

Quintus was an egregious blunder, if not animpertinent

boldness. In this

letter (3), St. Cyprian observes that St. Peter did not cta.im "insolently nor

arrogantly" for himself the primacy: a manifest allusion to the claims of the

Pope.


treated the Bishop of Carthage.1

Although he did not actuallybreak off communion, at least he threatened to do so, with

the Churches of Africa and those which followed the same

practice, in case they would not give it up.2 Let it be observed,

however, that of his answer to St. Cyprian we have only the

chief phrase recorded by St. Cyprian himself: "Si qui ergo a

quacumque haeresi veniant ad vos, nihil innovetur nisi quodtradition est, ut manus illis imponatur in paenitentiam, cumipsi haeretici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent,sed communicent tantum." 3

No doubt Stephen had taken a view of this matter quitedifferent from that of the Bishop of Carthage; and what was

probably for the latter a merely disciplinary question waslooked upon by the Pope as a question that concerned the

integrity of faith itself. Later on, we shall examine the argu-ments brought forward by both parties. At any rate, althoughhe was taken by surprise, St. Cyprian was not put out of

countenance and withstood his adversary. Some time after

receiving the Pope's answer, in the summer of the year 256,he sent a copy of it to Bishop Pompeius, which he accompaniedwith an impassioned criticism. In it he charged Stephen witherror: "eius errorem denotabis" (i), pointed out the "aquacumque haeresi," and the "cum ipsi haeretici, etc.," of

his answer (3), and added that bishops ought not only to

teach, but also to learn and acquire knowledge (10). Then,in September 256, he convoked a Council of 84 Bishops fromAfrica, Numidia and Mauritania, who unanimously approvedhis decisions and conduct;

4finally he sought for allies in the

East. Prompted by him, Firmilian, Bishop of Csesarea of

1 FirmiUan's Letter, LXXV, 25.2 Firmilian's Letter, LXXV, 25; Sentential episcoporum, proemium: Eu-

SEBIUS, Eccles. Hist.. VII, 5, 4.8Ep. LXXIV, i.

4 Sententiae episcoporum (HARTEL, I, pp. 435, foil.).


Cappadocia, a man commendable for his virtue and learning,wrote to tell him that he himself, as well as his colleagues of

Phrygia, Galatia, Cilicia and the neighboring provinces,

agreed with the Churches of Africa in rejecting the Baptismof heretics. This letter (the LXXVth) is extremely harsh for

the Pope,whom it calls a schismatic and a heretic in the highest

degree: "Tu haereticis omnibus peior es" (23). "Ille est

vere schismaticus qui se a communione ecclesiasticae unitatis

apostatam fecerit. Dum enim putas omnes a te abstineri

posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti" (24).

So, neither Cyprian nor Firmilian accepted the Pope's

decision; although unwilling to separate from Rome, the

Churches of Africa and of Cappadocia stood up in resistance

against her. It is hard to say what might have happened,had Stephen survived. But he died on August 2, 257. While

maintaining the custom of his Church, his successor Xystus II

(August 30, 257- August 6, 258) did not deem it wise to urge,

as much as Stephen, its acceptation by the dissenting Bishops:this was also the mind of his advisers, as well as that of Diony-sius of Alexandria. Although agreeing on the whole, it seems,

with Rome, the latter did not think, that the question was

such as to justify them to pass by the view of importantCouncils and break off with half of the Church. He had

already written in this sense to Pope Stephen;1 he wrote

also to Xystus II,2 and to two Roman priests, Dionysius and

Philemon,8 the first of whom, was destined soon to ascend St.

Peter's chair. There the matter stood for the time being.

It is interesting to study the reasons brought forward byboth parties in this dispute. Those of the rebaptizers are

easy to find in the letters of St. Cyprian and of Firmilian;

those likewise of the Roman party are known to us, at least

*ETTSEB., Eccles. Hist., VTC, 4; 5, i, *

*ETTSEB., EccL Hist., VII, 5, 3-6; 9,

*ETJSEB., Ecd. Hist., VII, 5, 6; 7.


sufficiently, both by the refutation St. Cyprian opposes to

them, and by an anonymous treatise, the Liber de rebaptismate,

probably written about the year 256 by an African Bishop,who shared the Pope's views.1

Yet, we cannot but regret that

Stephen's reply is lost; it would perhaps lighten up pointsthat are obscure.

In the reasoning of St. Cyprian and of Finnilian, the con-

fusion between the validity of Baptism and its efficacy is com-

plete. They do not imagine that a Baptism that does not

directly remit sins can be taken into account at all.

NoW that the Baptism given by heretics and schismatics

is incapable of remitting sins, is a conclusion of this funda-

mental principle often repeated: viz., that the true Church

alone can effect that remission; that in her alone, grace and

the means to impart or to receive it are to be found; that

she is the ark outside of which there is no salvation, the sealed

spring from which outsiders cannot draw; that heretics arid

schismatics, being outside the Church, cannot therefore com-

municate the grace of Baptism nor cleanse souls.2

Then, they

added, Baptism is the bringing forth of the children of God;now heresy is not the spouse of Jesus Christ, hence it cannot

beget children to Him.3Besides, the opponents grant that

heretics cannot give the Holy Spirit, since they receive into

the Church, precisely through the rite that confers the Holy

Spirit, those of the dissenters who come back to the fold: whyshould heretics be incapable of that communication, if their

Baptism remits sins? For, after all, the Holy Spirit is the

author of the remission of sins in Baptism. The Church, the

Holy Ghost, true Baptism, are three terms that are doselyconnected and necessarily go hand in hand.4

Again, another

1 Cf. P. MONCEAUX, Hist. M. de I'Afrique Chrtt., II, pp. 91-97.

Kpf. LXIX, 2, 3; LXXIII, 7, 10-12; LXXTV, u; LXXV, u, 16.

* Ep. LXXIV, 6; LXXV, 14.*Epf. LXK, 10, n; LXX, 3; LXXHI, 6; LXXIV, 4, sj LXXV, 8, 12,


series of ideas still more dangerous : how can a ministerof the Sacrament, who personally possesses neither the true

faith nor divine grace, nor the Holy Spirit, how can he impart,these to others? How can he, who is God's enemy, be His

cooperator? "Quomodo autem mundare et sanctificare aquampotest qui ipse immundus est? . . . aut quomodo baptizansdare alteri remissionem peccatorum potest qui ipse sua pec-cata deponere extra ecclesiam non potest?"

1 "Haereticumhominem sicut ordinare non licet, nee manum imponere, ita

nee baptizare, nee quicquam sancte et spiritaliter gerere,

quando alienus sit a spiritali et deifica sanctitate." 2 Like-

wise too, attention ought to be paid to the faith of the baptized

neophyte, who cannot receive the grace given in the Church,unless he believes what the Church believes.8 In fine, while

the opponents invoke the practice of Rome, the Africans

may invoke their own practice, long since sanctioned by the

Council held under Agrippinus.4

As a matter of fact, the custom, the "consuetudo" was one

of the chief arguments brought forward by the Pope's party:

"Nihil innovetur nisi quod tradition est, ut manus illis im-

ponatur in paenitentiam."5

This is the one enlarged uponin the whole Liber de rebaptismate: "Existimo nos non infir-

mam rationem reddidisse consuetudinis causam . . . quan-

quam haec consuetudo, etiam sola, deberet apud homines

timorem Domini habentes and humiles praecipuum locum

*Epp. LXX, i; LXEC, 8; LXXI, i.

*Ep. LXXV, 7, 9-11.

*Ep. LXXIII, 4, 17, 18.

4Epp. LXXI, 4; LXXin, 3.

8Ep. LXXIV, i. Some have understood these words in the sense tfcat noth-

ing should be renewed, but what tradition commands should be renewed, viz.,

the laying on of the hand: "nihil innovetur nisi," etc. However, this is not the

meaning attached by the contemporaries to the word wwmetur (ST. CXPRIAN,

Ep. LXXIV, 2; cf. Ep. LXX, 5; De rebaptismate, i). The Pope lays down a

general principle: the custom is to be maintamed, and no innovation, made.

Now, this custom enjoins only the imposition of the hand.


obtinere" (19). This is why St. Cyprian sometimes denies

the proving force of custom in general (non est autem

de consuetudine praescribendum, sed ratione vincendum),1

sometimes too calls in question the divine and apostolic origin

of the particular custom brought against him. 2

This was not the only argument to which the Roman party

appealed. The Bishop of Carthage reproached the Pope for

alleging the example of those heretics who did not rebaptizetheir converts:3 but his own attention was drawn to the fact

that by readministering Baptism, he was following on the

footsteps of the Novatianists who also gave again Baptism to

their recruits.4

It was said besides that the faith of the

baptized, not of the person who baptizes, has to be taken into

account;5 that St. Peter and St. John did not rebaptize the

Samaritans;6 that to require a new Baptism would be to

throw an obstacle in the way of the conversion of heretics.7

The chief argument insisted on, however, was the power of

the divine names invoked in the Baptismal formula, a powefwhich is "exercised independently of the minister's faith and

dignity.8 This last argument is set forth more especially in

the Liber de rebaptismate. The author of that work which

is confused and lacks proper order begins to get some light

on the distinction between the validity and the efficacy of the

Baptismal rite. To receive the whole efficacy of Baptism, he

remarks, we must be born of water and of the Spirit (2). Tobe born again of the Spirit is, after all, what is most important,since the ceremony of immersion can be otherwise compen-

iEpp. LXXI, 3; LXXHI, 13, 23; LXXIV, 9; LXXV, 19.

3Epp. LXXHI, 13; LXXIV, 2, 3.

8Ep. LXXIV, 3.

4Ep. LXXIII, 2.

5Ep. Lxxrn, 4.

6Ep. LXXm, 9.

Ep. LXXIII, 24.

#. LXXin, 4; LXXV, 9,

'

sated for, as is the case with martyrdom (n, 14, 15). AnyThow, these two things can be separated, and one can go with-

out the other (3, 4). That is what takes place in the Baptismof heretics. In the latter, the immersion is performed in the

name of Jesus. The power of that invocation, even on the

lips of a heretic, is such that it begins the work of regenera-

tion, and makes another performance of the rite unnecessary

(6, 7, 10, 12, 15). However, it does not suffice to perfect that

regeneration. If the neophyte dies before coming back to the

true faith, his Baptism does not avail him anything (6, 7, 10),

or rather does nothing but make his condemnation worse;

while, if he comes to the true fold, it is enough to complete,

by the conferring of the Holy Ghost, the first ceremony, that

it may have its full effect (10; cf. 12, 15).

Although, as we have said, the question was not solved

solemnly in the third century, yet peace was made between the

successor of Stephen, Xystus II, and St. Cyprian,1 and be-

tween the successor of Xystus II, Dionysius, and the Church of

Csesarea in Cappadocia.2

Besides, Africa soon adopted the

Roman custom. The Council of Aries in the year 314, which

was attended by many African Bishops, decreed in its 8th

canon: "De Afris quod propria lege sua utuntur ut rebap-

tizent, placuit ut, si ad Ecdesiam aliquis de haeresi venerit,

interrggent eum symbolum; et si perviderint eum in Patre et

Filio et Spiritu sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum

imponatur ut accipiat Spiritum sanctum. Quod si interroga-

tus non respondent hanc Trinitatem, baptizetur." At the

time of St. Augustine, the orthodox did not meet with any

difficulty on that subject.

In the East, the hesitancy lasted longer. At the end of the

fourth century, St. Basil witnesses that at Iconium the Roman

1PONTIUS, Cypriwii vita, 14 (HARTEL, S. Cypriani ofera, HI, p. cv); d,

Ep. LXXX, i.

Sx, BASIL, Epi& XX, JP. <?., XXXH, 436,

decisions had been adopted; though, as to himself, in Caesarea,

he followed a contrary practice, being ready at the same time

to come to a compromise for the sake of peace, and to acknowl-

edge as valid the Baptism of those who are merely schismatic.1

The Council of Nicaea in Bithynia (325) admitted the ordina-

tions of the Novatianists (can. 8), while it commanded to

rebaptize the followers of Paul of Samosata (can. 19). How-

ever, St. Athanasius affirms2 that the latter baptized in the

name of the Trinity, although they did not understand, he

says, by the Father and the Son, what the Church under-

stands: they held heretical views, and this was a sufficient

reason for rejecting their Baptism. For the same motive,

he himself rejects the Baptism of the Arians, which he declares

to be void and useless, icevbv /cal aXu<nreX&.3

As to Antioch and Syria, the Apostolical Constitutions,

quoted above, prove that, as late as the fourth century, the

Baptism of heretics was still regarded there as null. In his

Procatechesis, 7, St. Cyril of Jerusalem testifies to the same

discipline.

1Epist. CXCIX, can. 47; Epist. CDOCSVTII, can. i.

2 Contra Arianos, II, 43.8 Contra Arianos, II, 42. From this it seems that the Baptism of heretics who

erred on the Trinitarian doctrine was not acknowledged. The alteration of

their faith on this point took away its efficacy from the formula they used and

improperly understood.

CHAPTER XH

THEOLOGY IN THE EAST FROM ORIGEN UNTIL THE COTOTCIL OPNIC^EA

x. The Successors and Disciples of Origen.

St Dionysius of Alexandria.*

IT is no easy task to follow the general development of

Theology in the East from the age after Origen till the Councilof Nicaea. Whatever may be the cause of the gaps we find in

the literary history of that epoch, the writings that havecome down to us are relatively few and most of them in amutilated state. Many are known to us only through the

quotations of subsequent authors and nothing but incom-

plete information can be gathered from these far too brief

quotations.

We do not know if Heraclas, Origen's successor or colleagueat the head of the School, composed any works: at any rate,

nothing has remained. On becoming Bishop of Alexandria,

about the year 232, he made over to Dionysius the manage-

1 The edition quoted is that of P. G., X; the fragments of the correspond-ence of the two Dionysii are quoted according to the edition of St. Athanasius

in P. G., XXV, XXVI. However, the most useful edition of all these docu-

ments is that of C L. FJELTOE, The Letters and other Remains of Dionysius of

Akscandria, Cambridge, 1904. Works: DITTRICH, Dionysius der Grosse von

Alexondrien, Friburg in Brisgau, 1867. P. MOBIZE, Denys d'Alexandrie, Etude

d'kistoire religieuse, Paris, i83i. H. HAGEMANN, Die r&nische Kirche wuL

ifo Einfluss auf Disziplm wnd Dogma in den ersten drei Jafofaunderten, Friburgin Brisgau, 1864. . TH. FOERSTER, De docirina et sententiis Dionysii Magni episc,

) Berlin, 1865.

ment of the catechetical school. Dionysius, surnamed the

Great, is the best known and the most illustrious of Origen's

successors in that function: he too ascended, about the year

248, the patriarchal see.

He was a man of great culture, whose literary activity was

no doubt intense, although no production of his, except one

or two, has reached us in its entirety. His philosophical tastes

are shown clearly by some fragments of his Apology and of a

work Ilepi <i!(rea>9, fragments put by Eusebius in his Praepa-ratio Evangelica (VII, 19; XIV, 23-27). The first fragmentconfutes the eternity of matter; the others impugn the atom-

ism of Epicurus and contain an interesting development of

the teleological argument in behalf of God's existence and

providence.1

Moreover, we know that Dionysius rejected

emphatically MiUenarianism and denied to St. John the

authorship of the Apocalypse;2 that he interfered between

the Pope and the dissenters in the Baptismal controversy,3

and that he showed himself rather easy for reconciling the

lapsi, especially when they had received the peace from the

confessors of the faith.4 An important testimony on the

Eucharist as "a sacred food," "the body and blood of JesusChrist" is found in one of his letters to Xystus II, quoted

by Eusebius.5 As regards his Christology, we may merely

notice the affirmation of two wills in Jesus Christ, God andman: one, which is the same as that of the Father, the other

which can bend towards a different object, although with sub-

mission to the former.6

The most important part of his Theology is his Trinitarian

1 P. G., X, 1269, foil.; 1249, foil.

2ETTSEB., Eccl. Hist., VH, 24, 25. Cf. above, chapter IV, 8.

*EUSEB., Eccl. Hist,, VII, 2; 4; 5; 7; 9. Cf. the preceding chapter.

*EUSEB., Eccl. Hist., VI, 42, 5, 6; VI, 44; cf. P. G., X, 1305, foil.

5 Eccl. Hist., VH, 9, 4.6 P. (?., X, 1597, 1599; cf. HARNACZ, Gesch. der dtchristt. JMern Die Uiber*

Hrfv p. 4ai,

THEOLOGY IN THE EAST 379

teaching. On this point we are more extensively informed,because of an incident the bearing of which is momentous for

the history of Dogma, and which took place between the years

259-261.After its condemnation by Callistus, Sabellianism had been

unable really to hold its ground in the West. In the East, it

continued to live for several years. In the year 244, Origen hadto bring back to the true doctrine Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra

in Arabia.1 Whether the latter was precisely a Modalist or an

Adoptianist, is rather difficult to infer from the short state-

ments of Eusebius. He boldly taught, the historian writes,

that the Saviour did not exist in a proper being before the

Incarnation, and that He had not a divinity of His own, but

only the Father's divinity dwelling in Him.2Anyhow, under

the episcopate of Heraclas, and next under that of Dionysius,in virtue of what circumstances, is hard to say Sabel-

lianism spread extensively in Egypt, and especially in the

Pentapolis.8

Although preached under the name of Sabel-

lius, the error was not exactly, at least on the surface, Patri-

passianism as it had been taught in Rome by Sabellius. It

had gradually developed into the following form, under which

the authors of the fourth century describe it, and which maybe fitly called Modalism.4

God, a simple and indivisible monad, is one person: He is

called vloTrdr&p, Father-Son; in His office of creator of the

world, He takes the name of Word. The Word then is God,the vioTraT&p manifesting Himself through the creation. Of

1EUSEB-, Eccl Hist., VI, 33-

* Tdv (Twrf/pa ical Kfiptov j][j,Qv \fryetv ro\fji,<ap pfy irpovfaoTfoal /car* tilav ovirtas

Trepiypa^ty irpb rys els MptiTrovs hnSifyctSt jaij5 pty Qebrirra lUfa? ^IP, dXY fyu

woXtreiw/^n^ atfry fjubvipr r^v TaTpucfy (ElTSEB., EccL Hist., VI, 33, l).1 ST. ATHANASITTS, be sent&ntia Diottysii, 5.* The chief sources 'are: ST. ATHANASIUS, Expositio fdei, 2; Oratio contra

AricMos, HI, 36; IV, 2, 3, 9, 13, 15, 17; De synodis, 16; De decretis nicaenae

synodl ST. HTUBY, Zte Trmitate, IV, 12. Sx. EWPHANIUS, Haer.


course, this manifestation lasts as long as the world itself,

and causes this aspect of Word to be permanent in God.

Now, to the world thus created the monad reveals itself,

in the Old Covenant, as lawgiver: this is the Father; in the

New Covenant, as Redeemer through the Incarnation: wethen have the Son; and as sanctifier of souls: this is the

Holy Ghost. These three successive states of the monad do

not constitute distinct persons: they are only three aspects^

three powers, three modalities, and as three names of the same

being (efc dvai iv pia vwoarda-ei rpels ovopaGtas). The Sabel-

lians, St. Epiphanius continues, would bring here to explain

their meaning, a comparison from the sun: the Son of Godis as its light, the Holy Spirit, its heat, the Father, its circular

form (TQV Se irarepa avrbv elvai TO eZSo? Travis 77)9

Moreover, and this is a point we should observe each

one of these three states is temporary and transitory. The

vloTrdrcop ceases being Father as soon as He puts on our flesh

and becomes Son; He ceases being Son, as soon as He appearsas Holy Spirit.

2 What is Son in Jesus Christ, is the humannature united with God: once the union broken, the Sonshipcomes to an end. All these transformations were accounted

for by the fact that the monad was subject to a twofold motion

of expansion and of withdrawal, TrXaiw^oV, vvfrroXij, which

dilated or repressed its actionand was called the divine StaXef19.

Thus, this form of Sabellianism differed from the Patripas-

sianism of old: (i) by the transitory character of the various

n-pdcTGJTra: the Father could not be said any more to have suf-

fered; (2) by the introduction into the system, of the personof the Holy Spirit, which formerly was not mentioned; (3)

1 ST. EprpHANius, Haer. LXTE, i.

2 ST. EPIPHANIUS, Haer. LXII, 3. On the contrary St Athanasius (Ora-tio contra Arianos, IV, 25) supposes that it is the Father, who, although re-

maining Father, thus appears as Son and Holy Spirit,

by the equality established between the three aspects, Father,Son and Holy Spirit. The Father, as such, was not the source

of the Trinity: He was made a secondary and temporary

modality: the subordination doctrine was thus ruined in its

very foundation.1

Such was the system, or at least something similar, which

spread in Egypt and in the Pentapolis under the episcopateof Heraclas and of Dionysius. To refute it, the latter wrote

several letters,2 one of which, sent to Ammonius and Euphra-

nor, two Bishops of the Pentapolis, displeased by its tenor

the orthodox of Alexandria. Dionysius was denounced to the

Pope of the same name. Letters were exchanged on both

sides, about the years 259-261, and the Patriarch had to

justify himself. St. Athanasius, who composed a whole treatise

to vindicate the memory of his predecessor,3 and St. Basil 4

have left us a portion unfortunately too meagre of the docu-

ments concerning that affair; however, it enables us to grasp

sufficiently the features of that doctrinal discussion and to ap-

preciate the theological position of the personages who took

part in it.

The charges brought against Dionysius of Alexandria were

very plain: he was accused of having separated too much and

divided the Son from the Father: &<upeZ fcal pa/cpvvei) /cal

pspi&i rbv vibv airo rov irarpfo;5

of denying God's eternal

fatherhood and the Son's eternal existence: OVK ael %v o Bebs

OVK ael ffu 6 vt6$ . . . ffv irore ore OVK fjv^ ov <ydp affofa

of not saying that the Son is opoovcios with God:

b. der D G., I, 724; History of Dogma, vol. IH, p. 87.8BUSES., $cd. Eist., VH, 26, i.

1 St. AxttANAsnis, De sententia Dionysii; De decrees nicaenae synodi, 26;

De syno&is.4Efist. K, 2; De Spirito Sancto, XXK, 7^

5 De sent. Di&itys., 16,

6 De sent. Dionys,, 14.

efc ou X^yopTQS TOV XPUTTOV ojj,oov<riov elvai rq> 0e;l

finally of

representing the Son as a mere adopted Son, a creature

foreign to the Father in His nature, and of using offen-

sive comparisons to express their relations: v. g., the Father

is the husbandman, the Son is the vine; the Father is the

carpenter, the Son, the boat He has made: Trofypa /cal

yevvrjTov elvai TOV vlov TOV 0eoO, ^re Si<j>v(ret, 8ioz>, a\Xa %evov

/car' ovatav avrbv elvai TOV 7raT/)o'9, famp eaTlv 6 <yea>pyb$ 7rpb$

TOV a^Trekov Kal 6 vavirri<yo$ Trpo? TO ovea^o?, /cal yap a>9 Tro^^ta

<3v OVK fy irplv <y&r)Tat? This last phrase, taken from the

letter to Euphranor, contained after all nothing short of

Arianism.

Immediate steps had to be taken. This was done in two

letters from Dionysius of Rome to whom the accusation had

been brought: one, private, for the Patriarch alone, askinghim to clear himself; the other, for the public at large, for-

mulating what the Pope thought was the true doctrine. Of

the latter the more important a portion has been fortu-

nately reproduced by St. Athanasius in his De decretis nicaenae

synodij 26.

First the Pope threw aside Sabellianism, then condemned

those who divided the divine monarchy into three separate hy-

postases and divinities, into three hypostases foreign one to the

other: et? Tpek Swa/Aet? Tivfa Kal iJ,eppt.<rp&a? vTroarckm? teal

0eo'T?7Ta5 rpefc . . . efc rpefe vTroffTcicrets f;evas a\\tf\a>v iravTO-

navi KexwpurfjL&as. On the contrary, he went on, the trinity

must be reduced to unity, it must be gathered up and

brought together, as in a summit, in one who is the God of

the universe: T^V ffefav r/otaSa efc &ct, &<rnrep efe &opv<f>tfv

1 De sent. Dionys., 18.

2 De sent. Dionys. , 4. ("The Son is a work and a creature of God, not ap-

pertaining to Him by nature, but in his essence as foreign to God as the vine-

dresser is to the vine, the shipbuilder to the ship; for, inasmuch as he was a

creature, he did not exist prior to his creation.")-

(TOP Oeov T&V o\a>v rbv Travro/cpdropa \&ya)) (ruyKe^>a\aiov(T0aire /cal (rvvdyearffat, Traca avdy^rf. Then he condemned the

intolerable error, as he says, of those who regard the Sonas a creature and who supposed that there was a time

when He did not exist; he concluded in these words: "Wemust neither divide the Wonderful and Divine Monadinto three divinities, nor destroy the dignity and exceed-

ing greatness of the Lord by thinking Him a creature: butwe must have faith in God the Father Almighty, and in

Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and in the union

of the Word with the God of the universe, for the Father and

I, He says, are but one, and I am in the Father and the Father is

in me. Thus both the divine trinity and the holy preaching of

the monarchy will be safeguarded."In this way the Pope kept clear of Sabellianism, Tritheism,

and Arianism. He said nothing of the opoova-ios : and while

his colleague of Alexandria avoided it, the Pope on the other

hand was not willing to adopt it. Then no word was uttered

against Subordinationism properly so called; but the doc-

trine of the Son's temporal generation was implicitly con-

demned or given up. Without distinguishing between the inner

and the uttered Word, between the Son's conception and

birth, St. Dionysius simply stated that the Son had always

existed, although being in the Father's bosom: el y&p yeyovev

o ino9, fa ore ov/c ffv ael & fjv el ye ev r$ Trarpt e<rriv.

Dionysius of Alexandria replied to the Pope in two letters.

The first, written forthwith, was only the sketch of a self-

defence;* the second, in four books, composed at leisure and

entitled "EXey^o? xal a-TroXoyt'a, set forth a formal justifi-

cation. Of the latter we have still some fragments, of which we

subjoin an analysis.

First the Patriarch denies rejecting the Son's eternity: far

from rejecting it, he had proclaimed it and proved it by the

1 De sent. Dionys., 18,

same argument as Origen had done: God is the eternal light, the

Son is the brightness of that light; now light always shines;

therefore the Son is eternal as God Himself: Ou yap $v ore 6

debs OVK fjv TraTrip . . . oVro? oZv alavlov TOV Trarpcfc, a6e&wo9 o

vuk &m, <&>? e/c <a>T09 &v.1 Then, when he comes to the

charge of discarding the consubstantiality of the Father and

of the Son, Dionysius observes that, although he had most

assuredly used by the way (e eiriBpopfffr) some inaccurate

comparisons to show the relations of the Father and of the

Son, yet elsewhere also he had insisted on other compari-

sons more appropriate, such as that of parents and of

children, of the root and of the plant, of the spring and of

the river. If he had not employed the word o/^oouow, it

was not because he refused to accept its meaning, but because

he had not found it in Scripture.2 Then resuming the

simile of the mind and of the word, a simile already

proposed by St. Justin and Tertullian, he strives to state it

with precision and to correct it: "The mind," he says, "pro-duces the word and manifests itself in it; the word reveals the

mind in which it is produced; the mind is as it were the inner

word; the word is the mind springing without . . . Thus the

mind is like the father of the word and exists in it; the wordis as the daughter of the mind. . . Although distinct one

from the other, they are one in the other; although two, theyare one (& ela-w, ovres Svo) : thus the Father and the Son

have been said to be one and moreover the one in the other

(?v Kal eV a\\rj\ot,$)."3 The charge of separating and divid-

ing the Father from the Son and the Holy Spirit was no better

grounded: for "it is thus," the Patriarch replies, "that we

expand into trinity the indivisible unity, and we reduce to

unity the trinity that cannot be diminished:" ofrro> JJL& ^efc

1 De sent. Dionys., 15.2 De sent, Dionys^ 18,

3 De sent. Dionys., 23.


e?9 re rqv rpidSa rty povaSa, ir\arvvouev aSiaiperov, jcal ryv

rpidSa TraXw afiefaoTov el? rqv povaSa c-v

As to making God the Son's Creator (jroi^rrjv /cal

Dionysius affirmed he had never intended to do so: God is

the Father, not the Creator, of the Son. Besides, the word

TronjTrjs can admit of a broader meaning: thus authors are

said to be the creators (m-oi^TaC) of their speeches, though in

reality they are only their fathers.2 *

j

Such is, in the abstract, the defence opposed by Dionysiusof Alexandria to his accusers. Was there actually in his case,

nothing but precipitancy and carelessness in the choice of ex-

pressions, as he pretends? Perhaps, St, Athanasius excuses

him, by saying that, after the example of the Apostles, he

spoke /car* ol/covopCav, insisting on the truth he was anxious

to inculcate.3 St. Basil is more severe.4 In any case, and if

there had been a real defection, the disciple of Origen had

quickly recovered his self-possession. Distinction of persons,

unity, cpnsubstantiality, circumincession, generation of the

Word by the mind, nothing was lacking for the orthodoxyof his teaching. True he admitted three hypostases, and it

seems that his adversaries did not fully agree with him on the

legitimacy of that expression;5 but neither are we told that

St. Dionysius of Rome condemned it. What the Pope objected

to, and what his colleague of Alexandria likewise rejected, was

three hypostases divided and separated one from the other.

As regards the teaching of the Patriarch especially about

the Holy Ghost, it was, according to St. Basil,6

quite imper-

fect, going to the length of denying His divinity and reduc-

1 De sent. Dionys., 17.2 De sent. Dionys., 20, 21.

* De sent. Dionys., 6-12.4Epist. DC, 2.

ST. BASIL, De Spmtu Sancto, XXIX, 72.

Efist. IX, 2; De Spirtiu Sqnctot XXK, 72..


ing Him to the rank of subject and created beings. While he

expressed these criticisms, St. Basil had probably in mind

some texts like the one found in the 2nd Book of the Apology.1

However we do not find that the Alexandrians ever brought an

accusation in this regard against their Patriarch, and as far as

we know them, the writings of St. Dionysius do not supply any

grounds for a charge of that nature. Nay, St. Basil himself has

drawn from our author, in behalf of the divinity of the HolySpirit, three texts he has inserted in his treatise.

2

2. Theognostus8 and Pierius.

Immediately after Dionysius, or even perhaps togetherwith him, we must mention Theognostus as leader of the

school of Alexandria, about the years 264-280. He is knownto have composed a work, the Hypotyposes, in seven books,which Photius read and analyzed,

4 and the doctrine of which

gave him offence in several points. He reproaches the author

with having drawn from Origen's Uepl apx&v many errors;

such as that of calling the Son fcrta/Aa, of extending His in-

fluence only to the \oywd, of lowering the Holy Ghost, of

ascribing a body to angels and to demons, etc. St. Gregoryof Nyssa has likewise discovered in his works the germs of

the heresy of Eunomius about the Son's creation;5

and these

judgments of antiquity have been reechoed in the note that

precedes the fragment of the Hypotyposes edited by Diekamp:"It is to be remarked that in several other [passages], this

1 De sent. Dionys.j 17.2 De Spiritu Sanclo, XXDC, 72.8Fragments in P. ., X, 235, ff.; ROUTE, Reliquiae sacrae, and edit., vol.

HI, 405-422; F&. DIEKAMP, Ein neues Fragment aus den Hypotyposen des

Alexandriners Theognostiis, in the Theol. Qtwrtalsckr., LXXXIV, 1902, pp.481-494-

*Biblioth., cod, 106.

5Gonfya*Eunomwm) III, Or. 3.

author (Theognostus) utters blasphemies about the Son of

God and about the Holy Spirit," However, the three extracts

from Theodotus that have been preserved by St. Athanasius,1

as well as that of Diekamp, show him in a better light. Side

by side with clearly subordinationist notions, the author pro-claims .the origin of the Son ex rrj? TOV Trarpb? ovcrta^ His

full and 'perfect likeness to the Father in the essence

cdrrjTa TOV Trarpb? fcar& rqv ov<riav . . . TrXyprj

fji), the Father moreover undergoing no decrease,

through the generation of the Son. As to the Holy Spirit, he

regards Him particularly as the source of knowledge and

the principle of grace imparted to the perfect.

We do not know whether Pierius 2immediately replaced

Theognostus as leader of the catechetical school of Alexan-

dria. Anyhow, his literary activity must be assigned to the

thirty years' period that goes from about the year 280 to the

year 310. That activity was of no small amount; he had

written much, and his talent, according to St. Jerome,3 had

caused him to be called "the younger Origen." The Codex

Baroccianus 142 ascribes to him a work with this or a similar

title Tiepl TT)? QeordKov* Photius 6 who had read a collec-

tion of twelve of his treatises tells us that his teaching about

the Father and the Son was accurate, though his style was

somewhat archaic; but as to the Holy Ghost, his views were

dangerous and incorrect (e7n<r<aX<J>? \(av ical SucrcreySa)? 807-

par(fa), for the Holy Spirit was represented as inferior in

1 De decretis mcaenae synodi, 25; Epist. ad Serapionem, TV, n; cf. P. G., X,240, 241.

aFragments in P. G., X, 241-246; and C. DE BOOR, Neue Pragmente des

Papias, Hegetippus und Piewus, Texte und Untersuck., V, 2, Leipsic, 1888.

Cf. HARNACK, Gesck. d& attchr. Litter., Die Uebertitf., pp. 439, 440.* De wis illwfr., 76.4 HAKNACK, Gesch. der oMur, IM&f^ Die Ueberttef., pp, 439/440,

.) cod, 119*


glory to the Father and to the Son. Moreover, Photius con-

tinues, Pierius seems to have admitted the preexistence of

souls, while, on the other hand, his writing about St. Luke

has a testimony in behalf of the veneration of images. This

is all that we can know of the theology of Pierius, the few

fragments that remain of his works exhibiting no doctrinal

character. On the whole, Theognostus and his successor con-

tinued to walk along the path marked out by Origen: side

by side with a teaching concerning the Trinity that is sub-

stantially correct, objectionable words might be found in

their writings, as well as a subordinationism which needed

correction.

3. St Gregory Thaumaturgus, Hieracas.

St. Gregory Thaumaturgusl did not occupy Origen's chair

either at Alexandria or at Caesarea; however, he was one of

his most enthusiastic disciples, and the passage of his Oraiio

panegyrica, in which he describes the master's methods and the

training he had received from him, may be reckoned among the

most interesting pages bequeathed us by Christian antiquity.

Together with Origen, Gregory tells us, he had much read the

philosophers, and these of all schools, except the Atheists,2

He seems to have retained from these readings a tendency to

insist on the unity of God, a tendency which his life spent in

the midst of half-heathen populations could but increase.

There are traces of it in the Treatise to Theopompus on the im-

passibility and passibility of God, which probably may be as-

cribed to him, and perhaps there were also in the Dialoguewith JElianus, which is known to us only through St. Basil.

1 The edition quoted is that of P. G., X. For the Treatise to Theopompus, cf.

P. DB LAGAJRDE, Ancdecta syriaca, Leipsic, 1858, or PITRA, Analecta sacra, IV,

Paris, 1883. Works: V. RYSSEL, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, sein Leben und seine

Sckfiftertj Leipsic, 1880, KOETSCHATJ, Des Gregonos Thawnaturgos Dankredean Origenes, Friburg in Brisgau, 1894.

* Orat. fanegyr^ 13.

Although the great Cappadocian Bishop testified on several

occasions to the perfect orthodoxy of the Thaumaturgus/ yethe had to defend it against the Sabellians. These pretendedto put themselves under the cover of his authority and quotedfrom him the formula irarepa real vlbv iirwoia fjikv elvai Suo,

v7roo'Tda'i Be & of his Dialogue with Mlianus. St. Basil

replies that Gregory, arguing in that place against a

Heathen, used that expression ayavicrn/c&s, not Soypartfcfai

naturally insisting on the divine unity. He adds that we mustexcuse by the same consideration the expressions Krlcrpa,

Troika, applied to the Son, expressions which besides re-

ferred simply to the incarnate Christ; and finally that the

text of the work is considerably altered.2

On the other hand, there still remains a monument of St.

Gregory's Trinitarian orthodoxy: we mean his "E/c0<ris

Trforew, of which the authenticity seems definitively estab-

lished and which is to be ascribed probably to the years 260-

270, The Word is said #09 etc Oeov . . . vlbs a\riQivo<$ aXyffwov

Trarpcfe . . . teal al'Scos alSfov; the Holy Spirit, e/c 6eov rty virapfyv

#%oz> . . . el/c&v TO# vlov T\e(ov reXeta, 0)97 Z&vr&v alrta; the

Trinity, rpifa reXeta, Sd^y teal alSidr^ri teal /3a(n\e(a p.^ fjiepi-

Zopfvri w& a7ra\\orpLovfjLevr]. The author concludes as

follows:"Wherefore there is nothing either created or in

servitude in the Trinity (ovre ovv /cTia-rdv TI, rj SovXov ev

ry rpiaty ;nor anything superinduced, as if at some former

period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was

introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wantingto the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without

variation and without change, the same Trinity abideth

ever." This formula, clearly affirming, together with the

distinction of persons, their eternity and equality, the im-

mortality and the perfection not only of the Father, but also

1Epist. XXVTH> i, a; CCIV, a; CCVTI, 4.

aEfist, CCX, 5.

3QO THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, constitutes a manifest prog-

ress on the theories of the ILepl apx&v*

It is not certain that Hieracas,1 the well-read ascetic of

Leontopolis in Egypt, was, like Gregory, Origen's pupil, for

he may have borrowed something of the latter's errors, even

though he did not follow his public lessons.2 The teaching of

Hieracas about the Word was correct: he believed, St. Epi-

phanius relates, that the Son is truly born from the Father, and

that from Him too the Holy Ghost originates (e/c warpo?

slvai}* On the other hand, we know that Arius opposed his

own doctrine to that of our author: he reproached him for

saying that the Son was as regards the Father \vyyw anb

\vyyw, rj o>9 \afjL7rd8a eh Bvo* or, as St. Hilary explains,

that the Father and the Son were like two lamps fed by the

same oil, the second however being derived from the first5

This

is the unity of nature; but Arius, who knew that the teaching

of Hieracas was open to the suspicion of the orthodox in other

regards, hoped, by that opposition, to throw the Church au-

thorities on the wrong scent in regard to his own teaching.

As a matter of fact, Hieracas fell into serious errors on other

points. He identified the Holy Spirit with Melchizedek,who was without father or mother, likened to the Son of God;

e

he rejected the resurrection of the body and condemned matri-

mony. This prohibition, he went on to declare, was the

novelty Jesus Christ had brought upon earth by His incarna-

tion. Authorized in the Old Covenant, forbidden in the New,matrimony had been tolerated by St. Paul (i Corinth., f)

merely propter fornicationem, for fear of a greater evil; but no

Source: ST. EPIPEANKTS, Haer. LXVH; LXIX, 7; LV, 5.

ST. EPIPHANIUS, Haer. LXVII, i, 2.

#a., 2, 3-

ST. ATHANASHJS, De synodis, 16; ST. EPEPHANTOS, Haer. LXIX, 7.

ST. HILARY, De Trinitate, VT, 5, 12.

ST, EPIPEANIUS, Haer, LXVH, 3; LV, 5,

one could, without continence, obtain life and get into the

kingdom of Heaven.1 Hieracas debarred also from Heaventhe baptized children that died before being able to perform

good works.2 So, the general tenor of his doctrine, as well as

of his life, was hard and austere. His disciples rigorously prac-tised abstinence and chastity.

3

4. Writers independent of or opposed to Origen. St. Peter of

Alexandria.4

If Origen had warm admirers and disciples, there arose also

and without delay a certain number of theologians to

whom his views gave offence. In his lifetime, ie was obliged

to write to Pope Fabian (244-249) and to several Bishops to

defend his orthodoxy.5

Less than fifty years after his death,

that orthodoxy found, at Alexandria itself, a first adversaryin Peter, the Bishop of the city.

Peter had probably been head of the catechetical school;

in the year 300, he became Patriarch, and in the year 311, re-

ceived the martyr's crown. Of his works, we have but short

fragments, which, however, suffice to indicate the character

of his attitude towards Origen, In his Uepl tyvxfis,he protested

against some allegorical interpretations of Genesis, and

against the opinion that regarded souls as existing before

bodies, and their union with bodies as a consequence of their

sin.6 That opinion of the preexistence of souls, he added, was

a Greek doctrine, foreign to Christianity,7 The same attitude

*ibid., i, 2.

8Ibid., *>

8Ibid., 3 8.

4 The edition quoted is that of P. G., XVEJ; for the fragments of the trea-

tise On the Resurrection, that of PXTRA, Analecfa sacta, TV, 189-193, 426-429;cf. HA&tfACK, Gesch. der dtokr. IMer., Die Ueberlief., 446".

<

5EtjSBBitrs, Ecol ffist. t VI, 36, 4.

p. G., xvxn, $20, 521.7 HAENACK, Gesck. der dtickr. Utter.) Die UeberL, p. 447.


manifests itself in the fragments of his treatise On the Resur-

rection, where he insists on the material identity of the risen

body and of the buried body, for the resurrection can be truly

such, only if the very being that was dead comes back to life.

From the other fragments of Peter that have reached us,

we may draw chiefly a witness in behalf of the presence of two

natures in Jesus Christ: "He was God by nature," he writes,

"and He became man by nature: eo? fy $vo-ei, teal y&yovev

avdpQTTo? Qva-ei,;"xalthough the Word, in becoming man, did

not lay aside His divinity.2 As to the fourteen penitential

canons which Peter has left,3they are of interest for the his-

tory of penance in Alexandria, at the beginning of the fourth

century. We see from them that the Patriarch admits to

reconciliation the repentant lapsi, after an expiation more or

less prolonged, of four years, at most.

5 5. St. Methodius of Olympus.4

We know scarcely anything about the life of St. Methodius,

Bishop of Olympus in Lycia, martyred, like St. Peter of

Alexandria, about the year 311; but his many writings or

fragments of writings which are still extant enable us to get a

fair idea of his character and of his teaching. Although Meth-

odius does not possess a superior mind, yet he is a well culti-

vated writer, fond of philosophy and natural sciences, an

i p. G., xvm, 512, 521.

p. G., xvm, 509.p. G., xvm, 468.

4 The edition quoted is, for the Banquet, that of P. G., XVHI; for the other

works and fragments, that of G. N. BONWETSCH, Methodius von Olympus, I,

Schriften, Erlangen and Leipsic, 1891. Works: A. PANKOW, Methodius von

Olympos, Mentz, 1888. G. FRITSCHEL, Methodius von Olympus und seine Phi-

losophie, Leipsic, 1879. C. CAKEX, S. Methodn Patarensis Convivium decem

wrginum, Paris, 1880. G. N. BONWETSCH, art. Methodius in the Realencykt.f&r

prot. Theol., 3rd edit., vol. XIII, Leipsic, 1903.


earnest inquirer and a sincere controversialist, a theologian

firmly grounded upon tradition, who is after all the first manof his age, since that age did not witness any truly great man.His general tendencies are decidedly anti-Origenistic, not that

he did not learn a great deal from Origen, but that he often

turned against the master what he had received from him.

Soon after they appeared, his works were neglected by the

Greek world, because of their "archaisms of thought and

expression;"

however, they have been recovered in part in

Slavic translations.

In his Trinitarian teaching, Methodius formally acknowl-

edges the full divinity of the Word, Son of God "by whomall was made,"

1 not an adopted Son, 'but the eternal Son,who never began and shall never cease to be Son,

2 Word before

the rise of time, to whom prayers are offered up.8 However

Photius observed that The Banquet contains some Arian ex-

pressions, and thought that the text had been altered.4 Thena few subordinationist words are detected elsewhere.

5 As to

the Holy Ghost, He is, according to the Bishop of Olympus,the efCTropeurrj wrdcrrao-is that comes from the Father, as Evecame from Adam.8

God has created the world, and although He carried it

eternally within Himself in posse, yet He created it in time.7

This world is summed up in man, the microcosm.8 Man is

characterized by freedom: 9 he was made immortal and ac-

* On the Leech, VH, 3.2Banquet, VHI, 9.

1Banquet, HI, 4; VII, i; XI, 2; On Leprosy, XI, 4; On the Resurrection,

HI, 23, n.*

Bfbttotk., cod. 237.* De create, IX, XI; d. PHOTIUS, BfbUotb,, cod 235; Banquet, m, 4, 6;

VH,i.6Fragment W, edit. BONTOTSCE, 35$.

7 De Kbero arb&rio, XXH, 9-11; De creatis, n, XL8 De resurrect., Et, 10, 2*

f De tib&o arbtorio, XVI, 2, 7; De r&wr., 1, 38, 3J I> 57, 6; Banquet, HI, 17.

cording to God's likeness: 6 7 0eo<? e/mcre rov avQpcoTrov eVt

fcal el/cdva rrp IStas CU&OT^TO? eTrowycrei' avrdv ... TO

ical tfeoewceXoz/.1 Our author opposes the preexistence

of souls and the doctrine of a sin previous to their union

with the body.2 As regards actual sin, although the devil,

he says, prompts us to it and has breathed corruption into us,

by bringing about Adam's fall,3yet that sin originates in re-

ality from the inclinations of the flesh.4 It is our duty to

withstand those inclinations,5until death rids us of this flesh,

for death is a grace of renewal. 6

Death is then both a consequence and a remedy of sin. But,in order that it might not become everlasting, and Satan

might be conquered by the very one he had seduced,7 the

Word was made man (eVai>0/)a)7r?7<ra9).8 This union of the

Word and of humanity is intimate ((rvvevdxra? real <rvy/cepda-a$)*

though Jesus Christ remains both God and man (avOpa>irov

a/cpdry BedrriTt, /cal T6\e(a 7rerr\r}pi&&ov, /cal 0ebv ev avOpcbiry

fcexapwevov) and the body of Jesus Christ is like ours, since

it is to save ours.u It remained real after the resurrection as

during the transfiguration.12

However, the chief idea of

Methodius on this point, an idea he borrowed from the Asiatic

school to which he belonged, is that of the recapitulation. JesusChrist is the second Adam, in whom our humanity was fash-

ioned again and united to the Word. Our author goes so far

1 De resurrect., I, 35, 2; I, 36, 2; I, 34, 3; I, 52, 5.8 De resurrect., I, 55, 4.8 De libero arbifr., XVII, 4, 5; XVIH, 4, ff.; De reswrect., II, 6, a.

4 De resurrect., II, 4, 3.6 De resurrect., II, 4, 3.6 De resurrect., H, 6, 3; 1, 39, 5; 1, 38, i; I, 43, 2 and foil.

7Banquet, HI, 6.

Banquet, I, 5; VHI, 7; X, 2.

9Banquet, HI, 5.

10Banquet, HI, 4.

11 De resurrect., II, 8, 7.u De resurrect., HI, 7, 12; HI, 12, 3 and foil.

as to seem to identify absolutely Christ witfi the person of the

first Adam.1

After thus becoming the leader of mankind and our repre-

sentative, Jesus Christ suffers for us, and cleanses us with His

blood.2 He is our help, our advocate, our physician,3 who

brings us forgiveness of sin, truth, immortality, the resurrec-

tion of the body-4 That work of Jesus Christ is fulfilled in

the Church and through the Church, His spouse, who bears

children to Him constantly.5 The instrument of this renewal

and generation is Baptism,6

Baptism makes not only Saints,

but Christs, for every faithful, participating with Christ, is

himself a begotten Christ,7 and the function of the Church

consists in producing the Word in the hearts of the faithful.8

The moral doctrine of Methodius is wholly religious, and

starts from the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ as the

principle of all good. True faith and works, the fulfilment

of precepts, are deemed equally necessary;9 as regards sins,

we are advised in case of fall to do penance for them, for

God is full of mercy and inclined to forgive them and cleanse

us from them.10 Then to the precepts, strictly so called, a

certain number of aphorisms and counsels of ascetic life are

added, that are partly borrowed from Origen and somewhat

inspired with Stoicism. Suffering is a means of purification;u

1Banquet, HI, 3, 4, 5, 8-

B Chi the Distinction of Meats, XV, XI, 4.1 De resurrect., m, 23, u.4Banquet, VH, 6; De resurrect., TL, 18, 8; n, 24, 4; m, 23, 4, 6.

8Banquet, HI, 8.

6Banquet, VIII, 6, 8; On the Distinction of Meats, XI, 6.

7 "OTTWS taowros rfiv &?w, r< fjurfyeaf X/>wroO, X/wdrftt ywqQfi (Banquet,

VLIl, 8, 9; On the Leech, VIH, 2, 3; On the Distinction of Meats, IV, *).

8Banquet, VTH, n.De resurrect,, I, 30, 2; HI, 23, n; On Leprosy, XV, 2; On the Leech, VHI,

4** De resurrect., Ill, ai, 9; HI, 23, 7-9-!* On the Distinction of Meats, I-V.


during this short life of ours, the objects we use do not belongto us, we merely borrow them;

1 above all, among all the

virtues, virginity is extolled as the most beautiful, TO /copv-

fyaitraTov teal pa/cdpiov briT/jSeupa? as the virtue of Jesus

Christ, the apyiirapBevos? Still, marriage is not forbidden.4

Methodius has composed a whole treatise on the resurrec-

tion of bodies: in it, he emphatically sets aside the resurrec-

tion understood in the Origenistic sense, as a kind of merely

spiritual resurrection. Man, he declares, is not to be trans-

formed into an angel, but is to be immortal in what he is:5

the body that will rise again is the one we have now. 6 More-

over, as we might expect, the Bishop of Olympus is a Mil-

lenarian. He thinks the world will last six thousand years,

and after that the just will rise and reign for one thou-

sand years with Jesus Christ before entering Heaven.7

Creation itself will be renewed and purified by fire, to last

forever* .

After what has just been said, it is easy to characterize in

two words the theology of Methodius. From a negative stand-

point, so to speak, it is decidedly and consciously anti-Origenis-

tic; from a positive standpoint, it reproduces the special ideas

and theories to which the Asiatic school (Irenaeus, Melito)was attached. Its general tendency is conservative; althoughit has been somewhat influenced by Philosophy, and, while

its author rejects the principle of aUegorism,8yet, in case of

need, he is not slow to use this kind of interpretation.9

1 On Life and Rational Action, V, i; VI, 3.2Banquet, VHE, i; VH, 3.

8Banquet, I, 5.

4Banquet, II, i, 2; III, u and foil

5 De resurrect., I, 49, 3, 4; I, 50, i.

' De resurrect., Ill, i, i; III, 2, 2, 3; HI, 3; IH, ?, 7; IDC,rBanquet, DC, i, 5.

8Banquet, III, 2; De resurrect., 1, 39, 2; I, 54, 6; m, 9, 4.

9 De resurrect., Ill, 8, 3, 7; On Leprosy, IV, 5.

6. The Dialogue 2)e recta in Detmfidc.*

We must place between the years 280-311 the compositionof the anonymous dialogue Uepl^ efc debv opBfy Trta^ew

which, because of the chief speaker's name, Adamantius, was

quite early, though wrongly, ascribed to Origen. The writinghas for its aim to refute Marcionitism and Valentinianism

in their various shapes. But, while engaged in that task,

the author, under the name of Adamantius, exposes his own

doctrine, and of this we intend to say a few words. Althoughthat doctrine is independent of Origen's doctrine and often

differs from it, yet it does not aim precisely at opposing the

teaching of the Alexandrian master. The following are its

chief features.

There is but one God, both just and kind, creator of the

world, and of prime matter itself (VI, 4), author of the two

Covenants. Evil does not exist in itself, nor is it a substance:

it is an accident, the result of angelic and human freedom:

the essential good cannot be the author nor the subject thereof;

participated good alone is capable of it, because of its freedom

(III, 8, 9, 10, 13; IV, 10, ii;

cf. I, 28).

Then Adamantius professes his faith in the eternal and con-

substantial Word, and in the Holy Spirit likewise eternal:

teal rbv % airrov Qsbv \dyov opoovwov a$l Hvra . . .

& /cal rfow, in opposition to men wfao are

such only through adoption, icarh 04<nv (III, 9). Now this

Word took, from the Virgin Mary an earthly flesh, the flesh

of Adam (V, 3, 95 W, 1:5). By this incarnation, He did not

The adiikm quoted is that ofW? H, VAN BE SA^IDE BAEH^JZEN,

1901.

transform Himself into the flesh (IV, 16) ;the person that He

was was neither changed nor destroyed: the same one who camedown from Heaven ascended there: akyOfa jap o tcarapfa

avrd? etm teal 6 avafids, ovBev a\\o ryevdpevo? yap* o tfv, 0eo9(V, 7),

These last words show us how loose the expression still re-

mains, although the thought is correct. Elsewhere the dualityin Christ of the two elements, divine and human, is affirmed

(6Wa>5 Oebv tcarct, irvevâ ical 6Wfi)9 avOpoairov Kara a-dp/ca oô\o-

y/io-avTes Hpurrfo, V, n), although in such terms that the hu-

manity seems to be a person distinct from the Word: 'O TOV

0eov Xctyo? fcare\9(bv aveXafiev avOpairov . . . teal 0^709 o \r}<j>Qel$

. . . OVT09 vTTGjMewe irdvra ra avQp&irwa Trddij,f

Cva TOV avdpcoirov

v&vy (V, 8).

Adamantius rejects expressly the peculiar soteriological

theory of Origen, who holds that the blood of Jesus Christwas a price paid to the devil for the redemption of our souls:

this is, he exclaims, nothing short of an absurd blasphemy:TToXX?) $Xo<r(^/w avoial The meaning of that \vrpa)(ri$ is

rather that Jesus Christ redeemed us from the slavery of sin,

for, having committed sin, we had become its slaves; however,this redemption must be metaphorically (tcaraxprjo-TiKw)

understood, since, besides, the Saviour resumed the life Hehad given for us (I, 27).

Like Methodius, our author does not admit the preexistenceof souls, nor their sin before their union with the body, nor theview that this union was the punishment of their fault (V,21). On the other hand, he teaches that the Catholic Churchalone is the depositary of truth, and that by departing fromher, one falls necessarily into error (V, 28); then he goes onto explain the word Catholic. True Christians are called

Catholics, he says, because they are spread all over the world:Sia rS Ka0

y

oXov TOV KOCTÔV elvat, (I, 8). In a passage aboutthe Eucharist (II, 20), the author designates the latter as thecommunion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and draws


from this fact a proof that creation is the work of the goodGod: otherwise, there would be a close union between light

the body of Jesus Christ and darkness the Eucharistic

elements.

! The dialogue in question treats of Eschatology only incident-

ally. There are, we read, two comings of Jesus Christ: one,

in humility, already fulfilled; the other, in glory, which will

be realized at the end of time (I, 25). God, who is a just

judge, will then treat everybody according to his merits and

deeds (I, 16; II, 5, 15). As to the resurrection, it will take

place in the very body which we now possess (V, 16); true,

that body will be externally changed and transfigured; but

it will keep its identity, and will not become another body:ovtc $re/w yvdfjt>evo? . . . ov/c aXXo? 7ra/>' o 7r&j>vice

ftez/09 (V, 24),

CHAPTER xrn

THE EASTERN HERESIES OF THE END OF THE THIRD CENTURY

i. The Adoptianism of Paul of Samosata.1

PAUL of Samosata is known chiefly through the Ecclesiastical

History of Eusebius (VII, 27-30). Chosen about the year 260

to replace Demetrianus in the see of Antioch, he soon dis-

played the scandal, not only of a false teaching, but also of a

life thoroughly worldly as well as haughty and violent in

character. Three Councils met at Antioch against him from

the year 263 to the year 268. The first two, presided over byFirmilian of Csesarea, were fruitless. The third, held in the

year 267 or 268, excommunicated the heretic and made its

decision known to the Pope and to the Catholic world, bymeans of a letter, some fragments of which are still extant.

The chief author of Paul's defeat in this last affair was a certain

Malchion, a former leader* of the Sophists' school, and later

1 Sources: first of all, the fragments either of the writings of Paul himself,

or of the account of his discussion with Malchion, or of the synodal letter of the

Council of Antioch in which he was condemned; all gathered in ROTJTH, Refo-

guide sacrae, ist edit., Ill, 286-367. Cf. another fragment of the Disputatio, in

PITRA, Analecta sacra, IH, 600, 601 and also HARNACK, 1Mb. der D G., 1, p.

684, note 6; Hist. of Dogma,vol. HI, p. 41, note 10. Then, the information sup-

plied by the writers of the 4th century: EUSEBHTS, Eccl. Hist., VII, 27-30; ST.

ATHANASIUS, De Synodis, 26, 43, 45, 51 ; Oratio contra Anon., II, 43 ; the

author (probably Didymus) of the Contra Apollinarvum, II, 3 ; ST. HXLARY,De Synodis, 81, 86

;ST. GREGORY or NYSSA, Aniirrhetic. contra Apott,, 5x;

ST. BASIL, Epist. LII; ST. EPDPHANIUS, Haer. LXV. Works: A. RivxixB,La Ckristologie de Paul de Samosate, Bibtioth&que des Hautes Etudes, Section des

sciences retigieuses, Paris, 1896.

EASTERN HERESIES 401

a priest of the Church, of Antioch, who baffled bis tactics andlaid bare his errors. Although deposed, Paul succeeded in

continuing to hold the church-builcHngs, owing to the help of

Zenobia, queen of Palmyra. In the year 272, under AureKan,he was driven from them once for all.

His doctrine, on whichwe are well informed, was nothing butthe Adoptianism of Theodotus and Artemon, but skilfully

presented. It amounts to this : There is in God only one person

(TTPOO-WTTOV &);1however, we may distinguish in Him a

reason (Xo'yo?) and a wisdom (<ro<j>ia). That reason and that

wisdom have no subsistence of their own: they are mere

faculties or attributes (awrooTaro?).2

True, God utters

His Word from all eternity, and thus the Word may be called

Son; nevertheless the Word remains impersonal, as the

human word*3

This Word, this divine reason, acted in Moses, in the Proph-

ets, but chiefly and in a most especial way in the Son of David,4

in Jesus, born of the Virgin through the operation of the

Holy Ghost.5Jesus is only a man: 6 He is "from below"

(fcdr&dev) ;

7 but the Word inspired Him from above (eV avr$ev&rvV(rev amffev o Xo'yo?),

8 and by inspiring Him, became

united to Him: a union of mere external action (Ifotfei/),9 or

if some prefer of indwelling, the impersonal Logos being

contained in Jesus as in a temple (& ev pd<$,lQ a union which

is a mere awttevw*1 and does not result in Jesus being God

1 ST. Epiram, Haer. LXV, 3.

ST. EOTHAN., Rwr. LXV, i, 5.

ROUTH, L G; 300; ST. EPIPEAN., I c.9 3.

4 ROUTE, I c., 301, 311.5 Roma, L c., 300.

ST. EPIPEAN,, I c., 7; cf. i, and EXTSEB., Bed. fl*tf., VIE, 27, 2-

EXISEB., Ecd, Hist., VH, 30, it, and c. VH, 27, 2; ST. EPIPHAN., I.

ST. EPD?HAN., J, c>, 7; Cott^ra ApoU., H, 3.

ROUTE, L c., 311.10

ROUTE, /. c., 30x5 ST. EPIPEAN,, /. c., i.

* ROUTE, I c,, 324*


in person (aXXo? yap evriv 'lya-ovs X/HCTTO? /cal aXXo? o Xctyo?) ;

*

nor does it give to the Word the personality which is lacking

to it for it is not an essence subsisting in a body (ova-fa

ovcrKOfjLev'r] ev orca/Aan),2 but only the reason of God, whose

light is imparted to Mary's Son KCLTO, fidBrja-w tcai tt&rowiav

* , . KCLT& TTQLOr^rCL?

Yet, for that very communication, Jesus is a being uniqueand without equal.

4 Anointed by the Holy Ghost at His

Baptism, He has reached moral perfection.6 His love of God

is unfailing, His will sinless: an excellence, Paul observes,

far higher than that which would accrue to Him from nature,

As a reward of that uprightness, God granted Him the powerto perform miracles. Jesus Christ triumphs over sin, not onlyin Himself, but in us: He redeems and saves us, at the sametime that He makes His union with God indissoluble.

Then His apotheosis takes place. The purity of His life,

as well as His sufferings, deserves for Him a name above all

name;6 He is established judge of the living and of the dead,

clad with the divine dignity, so that we may truly call Him"God born of a Virgin, God manifested from Nazareth/

7

debv e/c rfy irapd&ov, deov etc Naa/>er ofyQevra.*1

In a similar sense we may speak also of His preexistence:for Jesus did not exist before His birth substantially and per-

sonally (ova-fa /cal vrrovrda-ei) ;but He had been foreseen and

predestined by God, announced and foretold by the Prophets,

1ROTJTH, /, c, t 301, and cf. 312; ST. EPIPHAN., I. c., 7.

2ROXJTH, 1. c., 312, 302.

BROXJTH, /. c., 311, 312.

4 Paul spoke even of a difference of constitution between Jesus Christ and us.

(ROUTE, I c., 311.)8 For what follows, cf . the fragments of the Discourses of Paul to Sabinus in

ROTJTH, 1. G., 329, or better in HARNACK, Lehrl. dcr DG., I, 684, note 6; Hist,

of Dogma, vol. Ill, p. 41, note 10.

8Fragm* 3, to Sabinus.

7 Contra Apolttn., II, 3; cf. ST. GREGORY or NYSSA, Atitirrhcticoft, 3X; ST.,

ATHANASIUS, De synodis, 45, 26, IV.

and thus He existed in a certain way in God's designs and in

the prophecies that referred to His coming: T< i*evf

rrpoopLa-fjL&

irpb al&VG&v ovra.1

Such is, in a few words, Paul's system: evidently it was

nothing short of Adoptianism. Among the ideas which are

most prominent in it, we may notice that of the value of per--

sonal deeds, opposed to the excellence resulting from nature

alone. What comes from nature has nothing meritorious nor

superior; it is the effort of the will, the personal merit that

constitutes true greatness. Jesus is not God by nature: Heis more than that; He has become such by His virtue. Onthe other hand, by its way of explaining the union of the manand of the Word, the system foreshadowed Nestorianism.

This the adversaries of Paul soon noticed: hence he was often

mentioned and anathematized in the subsequent Chris-

tological controversies.

The Bishops of the Council of Antioch condemned these

doctrinal views. The fragments of their synodal letter, as

they are preserved by Eusebius, unfortunately touch but

very little the dogmatic side of the question.2 On the other

hand, we know an incident of that condemnation which was

mentioned only later on and is of the highest importance.The Semi-Arians, gathered at Ancyra in the year 358, refused

to receive the word 6>oov<no?, on the ground that the term

had been thrown aside by the Fathers who excommunicated

Paul of Samosata, in as much as it did not fitly express the

relations of the Father and of the Son. St. Athanasius (De

synodis, 43, 45), St. Basil (Epist. LIE, i) and St. Hilary (De

synodis, 81, 86), who record the objection, do not seem to

1 Centra Apoltwt., II, 5.a Another letter which is said to have been written by six Bishops present at

the Coundl and is still extant (ROUTE, L c., 289, ff.) contains on the contrary

about the divinity of Jesus Christ and against Paul's errors a detailed and

documented profession of faith* But its au&enticfty i$ quite doubtful.

deny the fact brought forward: but they claim that the

Bishops of the Council of Antioch did not understand the

word 6poov<no$ in the same meaning as the Fathers of Nicaea.

According to St. Athanasius and St. Basil, Paul raised against

the essential divinity of Jesus Christ the following difficulty:

If Jesus Christ did not, from man, as He had been, become

God, He is not opoova-ios T> Trarpf, and then there are three

substances: one, principal; the other two derived therefrom:

that is to say, as St. Hilary explains, in order that Jesus Christ

may be o>oov<no9 to the Father, what is divine in Him must

be something impersonal, something which is not an overfa (in

the sense of person, subsistence) other than the Father: other-

wise we would be obliged to consider both of them as comingfrom a primitive ova-fa in which they would share. In this

argument, ova-fa stood for vTroVrao-ts in Paul's mind; and the

Council rejected the o>oov<no9 thus understood. That ex-

planation is quite plausible, the more so that the words ova-fa

and vTroa-Tao-is received only afterwards their determined and

exclusive meaning.

Through Paul of Samosata and his contemporary, Lucian

of Antioch, Adoptianism joins hands with Arianism. Thelatter was to preserve the fundamental idea of the non-

divinity of Jesus Christ, but to compromise in regard to the

personality of the Logos, whom it represents as a superior beingincarnate in Jesus.

2, Manicheisni.1

Manicheism is not a Christian system nor a heresy, properlyso called, and would have no title to be studied in a history of

1 Sources: The sources that may- serve for the history of the Manichean doc-

trine have been divided into two great categories: the Oriental, and the Greekand Lafm sources. I. The Oriental sources, more important, include (i) the

Mohammedan sources: KITAB-AL-FIH&IST (about 980), edit G. FIOTGBI.,

Leipsic, 1871-1872. SHAHEASTANI (i2th century), Kitab-al^mlal wan nuhal,


Dogmas, had it not later on borrowed from Christianity, and

given rise to many refutations on the part of ecclesiastical

writers.

It appeared first in the East, and drew exclusively fromHeathenism its fundamental doctrines. It comes from the old

naturalistic religion of Babylonia and Chaldaea, completed byelements taken from Parsism and Mandaeism. Now the

latter was perhaps connected with Elkesaitism: at any rate,

certain Christian practices and ideas had penetrated into it,

and we may suppose although the fact is not established

that, in that indirect way, some Christian element crept from

the very start into Mani's system. As to Buddhism, to whichBaur formerly ascribed a considerable influence in the forma-

tion of Manicheism, scholars are now inclined to regard that

influence as of no importance.

Besides, it is no easy task, in presence of so many and various

sources, to form a complete and reliable idea of Mani's life

and teaching. The great outlines alone can aim at exactitude.

Mani was born probablyat Mardinu, on the south of Ctesiphon,between the years 214-218, and was brought up in the sect of

the Mugthasila or Baptists, which his father had embraced.

edit. CURETON, translation byTn. HAARBRTTCKER, Skafoastani's Religionsparthe-

ien und Phttosophenschuhn, Halle, 1850-1851. ABULPARAGIUS (+1286), Historic

orientals, edit. POCOCKE, Oxford, 1663-1672. The informations and extracts

given by TABARI (xoth century), At-Brawi (nth century) and others. (2) TheChristian, sources: ST. EPHRBM, chiefly S. Ephraemi syri . . . opera selecta,

edit. OVERBECK, Oxford, 1665. ESNIK, Refutation des differentes sectes, transl.

by LE VAILLANT DE FLORTVAL, Paris, 1853. ETTTYCHIUS, Chronicle, edit Po-

COCKE, Oxford, 1628. II. Greek and Latin sources: EusEsrcrs, EccL Hist.

VII, 31. Acta dispiOationis Arckelai cum Manete (P. G., X). The refutations

mentioned later on; the historians of heresies, especially ST. EHPHANIUS,ffaer. LXVI, and Sx. JOBDST OF DAMASCUS, De ha&esfbus, Diakgus Contra Mani-

chaeos; PHOTttrs, BibUoth,, cod. 179; finally the treatises of ST. AtTGrrsTram

against the Manicheans. Works: BEATTSOBRE, Histoire critique de Manichle et

du Mavtfchtime } Amsterdam, 1734. FLTJEGEL, Mani, seine Lehre und seme

Schriften, Lelpsic, 1862. K. KESSfcEfc, Mani, Forschwngen fiber die manichaeische

J&tigion, Berlin, 1889. F. ROCKAT, Essai sw Mani et sa doctrine, Geneva, 1897.

406 THE'ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

Later on, he received special revelations, and when he was

twenty-four years old, he began to preach his own system in

Babylonia, Persia, Turkestan and even India. A plot of the

Magi brought about his downfall. The King of Persia, Bahram

I, had him, seized and beheaded at Dschundisabur, about the

years 274-275-1

It seems well proved that Mani himself set forth a complete

body of doctrine. These are its most important features:

The foundation of the system is dualism: from all eternity,

there are two principles, or rather two kingdoms that are

opposed: the one, of Light; the other, of Darkness. Lightis the good both physical and moral; Darkness, the evil. The

kingdom of Light is ruled by the King of the Paradise of Light,

God; the kingdom of Darkness first has no leader; but Satan,

the primitive devil, soon comes out of its elements. These

kingdoms are forever placed side by side in their lower and

upper parts: yet they never blend together.

The confusion between both originates with Satan. Heclothes himself with the five elements of Darkness: smoke,

combustion, obscurity, warm wind, fog; and attacks the king-dom of Light. To resist him, God first produces an aeon, the

Mother of Life, and with her, the primitive Man, who, suppliedwith the five pure elements gentle breath, wind, light, water

1 The Fihrist ascribes to Mani seven principal works, traces of which are

found also elsewhere. They are, in Syriac: (i) The Book of Mysteries, the

Maw%aou Mv0r??/>fa of St. Epiphanius (Haer. LXVI, 13; Add Archelai, 52);

(2) the Book of Regulations for the hearers, probably identical with the Epistula fundamenti of St. Augustine, and with the KeijxtXatw pLpXtov of the AdaArchelai (52) and of St. Epiphanius; (3) the Book of Giants; (4) the letter to

King Sapor, Schdppdrakdn ; (5) the Book of Qmck&nmg, probably the same as

the 6i)<ravp6s of St. Epiphanius (Haer. LXVI, 13; Acta ArcheL, 52) or the

Thesaurus vttae of other authors; (6) the H/oco^orefa; (7) finally, in Persian, a

kind of gospel opposed afterwards by the Manicheans to the Christian Gospels

(Acta Archel.j 52). Several other works and letters are also quoted, and it is

certain that the writings which originated from the master or his disciples

were numerous; but most of them have been suppressed by the Church au-

thorities.

EASTERN HERESIES

and fire has to defend the boundaries of the realm. In this

struggle, the primitive Man is conquered and cast into prison.He is freed by God Himself, but in the clasp of Satan, the

pure elements have combined with the dark ones. A mixedmatter has arisen between Light and Darkness.

It is out of this composite matter that God forms the actual

world, in order gradually to disengage the luminous elements

therein enclosed, and bring them back ultimately into the

kingdom of Light. The sun and the moon are the instruments

of that deliverance, for which, however, man must prepare the

way. In him, as a matter of fact, Satan and his angels, whohave created or begotten him, have chiefly concentrated the

elements of Light. They have imprisoned them in his bodyas in a dungeon, and placed near him woman, the sensual

seduction incarnate, in order to perpetuate, through genera-

tion, that imprisonment. Man is then made up of good andof evil, and on his conduct the deliverance more or less speedy,more or less complete, of what is pure and holy in himself and

even in the world, actually depends. This is why he is cons-

stantly solicited in opposite directions by the demons and bythe Angels: the former prompt him to vice, to idolatry; the

latter teach him his true nature and warn him against the

senses. The Angels have sent the Prophets of the true doc-

trine, perhaps Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, chiefly Mani, "the

Guide, the Ambassador of Light, the Paraclete." By believ-

ing his teachings and fulfilling his commands, we may work ef-

fectively at the release of the luminous elements enclosed in

ourselves and in the world, and thus reach salvation.

What are those commands? In general, they are the expres-

sion of a dualistic morality like the theory itself on which it

rests, and ascetic in its tendencies. The principle is that we

ought to abstain from every sensual enjoyment. The perfect

Manichean carries three seals: the signaculum oris, which

forbids him impure food, such as the flesh ofAnimals,27

4o8 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

etc., and obscene words; the signaculum manus, by which he

is not allowed to handle certain objects in which the elements

of Darkness are contained; the signaculum sinus, which forbids

sexual relations, and therefore marriage. Besides, these pro-

hibitions were supplemented by a whole series of minute pre-

scriptions, of frequent fastings, prayers at a stated hour

several times a day, ablutions, etc.

An asceticism so austere and practices so numerous could

not, of course, suit the bulk of the Manichean believers, and

would necessarily have impeded the spread of the sect. This

is why they were obligatory only for those who wished to be

perfect, for the "Elect," caUed also "Truthful." The latter

alone pushed the respect for life in all its degrees so far as

to abstain from cutting a plant or picking a fruit. As a

reward, they were during their lifetime the object of the ad-

miration and attentive services of the "Hearers," and, after

death, could claim an immediate return into the Paradise of

Light. As to the simple "Hearers," they were bound to keepthe ten commandments of Mani, to avoid idolatry, lying,

greed, murder, adultery, theft, bad teachings, witchcraft, re-

ligious doubt and laziness. On the whole their life resembled

that of all men; therefore, after their death, they had to

undergo a whole series of cleansings, before rejoining the Elect

in the place appointed for their rest.1

It is easy to see that these two categories of believers cor-

respond well enough to monks and to persons living intheworld:

besides, the Manichean Church possessed outside and above

them, a hierarchy which was copied later on from the Chris-

tian hierarchy. At the head stood the Doctors or Teachers,

1 As to unbelievers and sinful Manicheans, they were condemned after their

death., to wander until the end of time, then to be cast into Hell. In any hy-pothesis, let it be observed, there was no salvation for the body. After all the

elements of Light had been taken from it, it was given up to Darkness whence it

came.


who also had a Leader: according to St. Augustine, they were

twelve; then came the Administrators (sons of knowledge),

seventy-two in number, according to the same Father; finallythe Elders or

. Presbyters, corresponding to Priests. Nay,later on, there were also deacons and missionaries.

As regards the Manichean worship, it seems at first to haveremained quite simple and to have included only prayers,

hymns and external expressions of adoration. There were

among them neither temples, nor altars, nor images. Their

chief feast was that of the Chair G8q/*a), kept in March in

honor of Mani's death. However, they soon adopted several

Christian festivals, as that of Pentecost, and rites similar to

Baptism and to the Eucharist. This last ceremony was accom-

panied according to some authors by obscene and re-

volting practices which considerably altered the primitive

purity of life the founder had intended to inculcate.

Thus constituted, Manicheism succeeded in gaining a wide-

spread expansion. In the East, the sect, which at the begin-

ning persecution had exiled beyond the Oxijs, came back to

Persia about the year 661, and later on set out once more for

Samarcand and Sogdiana in the tenth century, and penetratedas far as Tibet, India and China, On the other hand, in the

fourth and in the fifth century, it is found in Armenia and

Cappadocia. Paulidanisin at the end of the seventh, and

Iconoclasm in the eighth century, contributed to spread its

influence. Colonies of Manichean Armenians, transported

into Europe by Iconoclastic Emperors, implanted it in Bul-

garia, Macedonia, Thracia and Epirus, and developed it in

the bosom of the Greek Church, under the names of Euchites,

Enthusiasts and Bogomilians. From there it spread by meansof missionaries, in Italy, France, Germany and England, and

there became the germ of die heresy of the Cathari and of the

Albigenses.

On the otto htod, Matlcheism had directly penetrated into

4io THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY

the Roman Empire about the year 280. During the fourth

century, it was prosperous in Africa, and, as we know, St. Au-

gustine professed it for nine years. There the sect held its

ground, in spite of the decrees of extermination enacted

against it by Valentinian in the year 372, by Theodosius in

the year 381, and by Honorius in the year 407, and thence it

reached Spain, Aquitaine and Gaul. At Rome it had settled

as early as the fourth century. It grew still stronger in the

following century, when many African emigrants driven by the

Vandals from their native land, arrived in Italy, and it perse-

vered until the seventh century, under St. Gregory the Great.

The Latin Manicheans were thus able to wait for those breth-

ren who were to come from the Greek Empire, and work with

them at the task of propaganda already mentioned.

However, that diffusion of the error was not effected without

struggles, and ecclesiastical writers opposed Manicheism with

vigorous refutations. Alexander of Lycopolis, who wrote the

Tractatus de placitis Manichaeorum, at the end of the third

or at the beginning of the fourth century, probably is not a

Christian;1 but Serapion of Thmuis (+ about 3S8),

2 Titus of

Bostra (+ about 374),8perhaps George of Laodicaea (+ after

36o),4 St. Basil,

5Didymus the Blind,

6Diodorus of Tarsus,

7

composed works against the Manicheans, several of which have

been preserved wholly or in part. St. Augustine himself wrote

about twelve books against them.

Of these refutations, one of the oldest and very probably the

most precious is the pamphlet entitledAda disputotioms sancti

1 P. G., XVIII, p. 412.* p. G., XL.8 P. DE LAGARDE, Titi Bostreni contra Manichaeos Ubri quatuor, Berlin, 1859.4 That is Draeseke's opinion. The work is in P. DE LAGARDE, Op. eti.

8 The work is lost. Cf. ST. AUGUSTINE, Contra Jidianum, I, 16, P, .,

XLIV, 650.

p. <?., xxxrx, 1085, foil.

7 The work is lost, but mentioned by PHOTHJS, Bibltoth,, cod. 85.

.EASTERN HERESIES 411

Archelai cum. Manete.1 Heraclian of Chalcedon assigns as its

author a certain Hegemonius of whom nothing more is known.2

In these A eta, interesting points of information are abundantand they may even contain documents that come from the

time of Mani himself. The work belongs to the first half or to

the middle of the fourth century.

Besides the arguments against Mamcheism, several authors

have called attention, in the Christology of the Acta, to the

Adoptianist or even Nestorian tone of the 5oth chapter.Mani charges Archelaus with making Jesus the Son of God byadoption, not by nature: "Ergo per profectum Filius vide-

bitur et non per naturam?" To which Archelaus replies bydistinguishing the Son of Mary from the Christ of God whocame down upon Him and whom he seems to identify with the

Holy Ghost: "Est enim qui de Maria natus est Filius, quitotum hoc quod magnum est voluit perferre certamen, lesus.

Hie est Christus Dei qui descendit super eum qui de Maria est

. , . Cum resurrexisset ab inferis, assumptus est illuc ubi

Christus films Dei regnabat . . . Spiritum qui de caelis

descenderat, per quern vox Paterna testatur dicens: Hie est

Filius meus dilectus, nullus alius portare praevaluit, nisi qui

ex Maria natus est super omnes sanctos lesus."

1 P. G.j X, Except a few fragments in Greek, we have only a Latin transla-

tion, which, from a recent discovery, may be ascribed to about the year 400.

Cf. HAHNACX, Geschichte der attchrist. Litter., Die Chronokgie, EC, pp. 548, 549.

Pnoxnrs, Bibtiotb., cod. 85; cf. HAKNACK, L c.

CHAPTER XIV

THE WESTERN THEOLOGIANS AT THE END OP THE THIRD ANDAT THE BEGINNING OF THE FOURTH CENTURY

i. Arnobius 1 and Lactantius.

IN the West no more, nay even less than in the East, do wefind from St. Cyprian to the Council of Nicsea, a writer whowas the worthy successor of the great theologians of old. Ar-

nobius, Lactantius and perhaps Commodian himself are lay-

men, whose theological knowledge is shallow or unsafe, whose

authority is insignificant, whose works retard rather than ad-

vance the general state of Christian teaching at their epoch.Arnobius was a convert who, between the years 304-310,

composed against the Heathen an Adversus nationes, destined,

on the one hand, to refute their objections, on the other to showthe absurd and immoral character of their belief, as well as the

emptiness of their worship. The Adversus nationes is a polem-ical writing: therefore we should not expect to find in it either

a professed or complete exposition of the Christian faith, the

more so as the author was acquainted with it only imperfectly.

Among the happy features of his book, we may notice the

emphatic profession of the divinity and of the humanity of

Jesus Christ: "Deus, re certa, Deus, homo tamen natus,

1 The edition quoted is that of P. L., V. Works: LECKELT, Uebcrdes Arno-Hus Schrifl Adversus Nationes, Neisse, 1884. K. B. FRANKE, Die Psychologictmd Erkenntnislehre des Arnobius, Leipsic, 1878. A. ROHRICHT, Die Sederslehre des ArnoUus, Hamburg, 1893. E. F. SCHULZE, Das Utbel in der Welt nachdie Lehre des Arnobius, Jena, 1896.

WESTERN THEOLOGIANS 413

Deus interiorum potestatum, Deus sublimis, radice ex intima"

(I, 53, 42, 45-47, 49); the high idea lie expresses of God:"Unus est hominis intellectus de Dei natura certissimus, si

scias et sentias nihil de illo posse mortali oratione depromi"(III, 19); the affirmation of the freedom of faith (II, 65).Arnobius rejects the theory which ascribes to the soul a fore-

knowledge of things, which had preceded the actual knowledgeit acquires and of which the latterwas a mere remembrance (III,

19, ff., 28); he witnesses to the existence of prayer for the

dead (TV, 36) and speaks (II, 14) of the unquenchable fire of

Hell, which, however, he doe's not seem to regard as eternal

(II, 14, 61).

Side by side with these happy features, we find also, in his

book, many gaps and errors. Arnobius had been much struck

with man's ignorance and physical and moral misery, and he

pushes to a bitter pessimism the picture he makes of it, as

well as the consequences he draws. He does not think we can

know where we come from, nor the first cause of the evils that

weigh upon us (II, 58). Nay, the origin and the destiny of

the soul are for him insoluble problems. The soul is too punyand vicious to be the work of God (II, 37, 39, ff., 46, 48, 55);

she is rather the work of subordinate powers whose nature we

cannot exactly determine (II, 53). She is not immortal byessence: she becomes so only through God's mercy, if she

fulfils His commands (II, 14, 31-33, 35, 36, 53); and as to &Q

souls of the wicked, if they do not fully perish together with

the body, it is because God has in store punishments that

are for them a genuine death (II, 14). The author concludes

as follows: "Ergo cum haec ita sint, non absone nequeinaniter credimus mediae qualitatis esse animas homintun,

utpote a rebus non principalibus editas, iuri subiectas mortis,

parvarum et labilium virium: perpetuitate donari, si spemmuneris tanti Deum ad principem conferant, cui soli potestas

est talia corruptione exclusa largiri" (II, 53).


Arnobius has scarcely anything concerning Soteriology:

just a mere allusion in Book I, 60; his Christology is veryweak. He does not seem to have been a Docetist, in spite of

some inaccurate expressions ("homine simulate," I, 61); but

he establishes between the Word and the man in Jesus Christ

a bond which is very weak indeed and unsatisfactory (I, 60).

Thus, according to him, we should not say that Christ died;

it was not Christ who died, but the man whom He carried:

God cannot die. We are no more allowed to say Christ died,

than we should be to say Apollo died, if the Sibyl whom the

god inspired were killed at the very time of her inspiration:

"Sed more est hominis interemptus? Non ipse; neque enim

cadere divinas in res potest mortis occasus . . . quis est ergo

visus in patibulo pendere, quis mortuus est? Homo querninduerat et secum ipse portabat . . . Mors ilia, quam dicitis,

assumpti hominis fuit, non ipsius, gestaminis, non gestantis,

etc." (I, 62). Again, the author supposes that, at the death of

Jesus Christ, the Word, departing from the body, appeared to

the universe, such as He was, exclusively in His divinity; and

this brought about the cataclysm which occurred then (I, 53).

We may add, that, in his refutation of Heathenism, Arnobius

speaks in too general terms of the uselessness of temples, ex-

terior worship and especially the use of incense in ceremonies

(VI, 3; VII, 26-28). Although his criticisms no doubt refer

only to the formalistic and coarse character of the Heathen

religion and rites, yet, because of their lack of limitation and

precision, they apparently condemn the most legitimatemanifestations of the religious, nay of the Christian sentiment.

The influence of Arnobius does not seem to have been very

deep during his lifetime. However, there was one man whomhe had trained and who excelled him: this was Lactantius.1

1 The edition quoted is that of P. L., VI, VIL Works: CH. LEXJIXXER,Etudes sur Lactance apologiste de la religion cMienne, Caen, 1846. CH. F&.


Born also in Paganism, he is the type of the philosopher andof the rhetorician who becomes a Christian without ceasingto be rhetorician and philosopher, who of course believes in

the new doctrine, but who sees in it a high and refined form of

monotheistic spiritualism, rather than the religion of the mys-teries of Jesus Christ, of the Redemption and of the Cross.

The Christian sentiment remained, so to speak, on the sur-

face of his thought and of his work; it had no hold on his in-

most thoughts; it did not well up from his soul, as from a deep

spring. And thus, as he had not sufficiently either understood

or assimilated the teachings of the Christian faith,Lactantius

though an elegant and tasteful writer recorded and exposedthem but imperfectly: "Utinam," St. Jerome exclaims, "tarn

nostra confiraiare potuisset quam facile aliena destruxit!" 1

This remark accounts for the considerable part which Apolo-

getics strictly so called and the development of natural reli-

gious truths hold in our author's writings. He has left us in

his Institutions a rather pleasing and somewhat strong dem-

onstration of the divinity of Christianity by the Prophecies

(I, 4) ;

2by the predictions and courageous death of the Apos-

tles (V, 3) ; by the sanctity of the lives of Christians in general

(V, 9); by the heroism and great number of Martyrs (V, 13,

22); by the moral transformation wrought by the new faith

(III, 25). He spoke of God, as a philosopher; he came back

often and with a particular fondness to the dogma of Divine

Providence, one of the truths to which he was most deeply

attached, and one that inspired his small treatise De opificio

JACOB, Lactonce considfrt comtne apologiste, Strasburg, 1848. M. E. HEINIG,

Die EtMk de$ Laktantius, Grimma, 1887. FR. MARBACH, Die Psychologic des

Fimianus Loktwtius, Halle, 1889. P. G. FROTSCHER, Des apologeten Lak-

tantius VerMtmss wr griechischw Philosophic, Leipsic, 1895. R. PIGEON,

Lactance, Paris, 1901.1Epist. LVm, 10.

2 All the references, unless expressly stated otherwise, are to the Divinae

Institutions.


Dei; he insisted likewise on creation (II, 5, 9; I, 3). How-

ever, his apologetic and philosophic tendencies have not pre-

vented him from telling us, now and then, the contents of his

Christian faith properly so called, and the conception he had

of its mysteries.

For him, the birth of the Son of God cannot be accounted

for; however, he goes on to say, since, according to Scripture,

the Son is the Word of God, He probably came out of God's

mouth, like a ringing voice and noise ("cum voce ac sono ex

Dei ore processit," IV, 8), while the Angels issued from Godin the midst of silence (Ibid.). Does that utterance of the

Word bring about the existence of two gods? No, and Lac-

tantius, who follows in Tertuffian's footsteps, explains, as the

latter had done before, the continuance of the divine unity,

either through the unity of substance, or through the moral

unity that exists between the Father and the Son: "Cumigitur et Pater Filium faciat et Filius patrem, una utrique

mens, unus Spiritus, una substantia est: sed ille quasi exu-

berans fons est, hie tanquam defluens ex eo rivus; ille tanquamsol, hie quasi radius a sole porrectus . . . Quapropter cummens et voluntas alterius in altero est, vel potius una in

utroque, merito unus Deus uterque appellatur, quia quidquidest in Patre in Filium transfluit, et quidquid in Filio a Patre

descendit" (DC, 29). Again, just as Tertullian before him, he

falls into the error of the Word's temporal generation and into

Subordinationism, On the former he is explicit: "Cum esset

Deus ad excogitandum providentissimus . . , antequam or-

diretur hoc opus mundi . . . produxit similem sui spiritum,

qui esset virtutibus Dei Patris praeditus" (II, 9, col. 294; cf.

IV, 6, col. 461 ; 8, col. 466, ff.) : the Son was produced for the

purpose of creation. As to Subordinationism, Lactantius

pushes it so far that he seems to place on the same level the

Son and the angel who afterwards became the devil, and de-

clares that, if the Son is dear to God and approved of Him, it


is because of His perseverance in doing good (II, 8, col. 295,

ff.; cf. IV, 8, col. 467).

As regards the Holy Ghost,the works of Lactantius that havereached us contain nothing to signalize. St. Jerome, however,

charged him with denying, in his letters to Demetrianusnow lost His divine personality, and of identifying Himsometimes with the Father, sometimes too with the Son.1

These are reproaches of which it is difficult now to saywhether or not they are deserved.2

The Christology exposed by our author in the 4th book (6-

30) of his Institutions is rather shallow and now and then verynear inaccuracy. He always supposes although he does

not affirm it explicitly the unity of person in Jesus Christ,

and while, on the one hand, he uses sometimes terms that are

inexact (v. g., IV, 10, 25), on the other, he knows and applies

the communicatio idiomatum (IV, 15, 30). Again Jesus Christ

is for him God and man, "Deus et homo . . . mediam inter

Deum et hominem substandard gerens" (TV, 13); hence His

quality of mediator, /-tecrm??, by which He is able both to serve

as a model for men, and to teach and command them with

authority (IV, 25). But Lactantius is mistaken when he sees

in that ministry of teaching and example the chief purpose of

the Incarnation, and the very essence of the Redemption.

Nay, according to him, in order to make this example more

complete, the Saviour became subject to concupiscence and

temptation,8 and He chose to be crucified simply to give in His

own person a model to the low and the poor, and undergo a

death that would preserve His body entire for the resurrection

(IV, 26)!

1Epist. LXXXVm, 7-

2 M tlmt we oui remark is tlxa^

a spirit (II, 9, col 294; IV, 8, coL 467).1 "Ideo came se induit, ut, desideriis carnis edomitis, doceret non necessi-

tatis ease peccare, sed propositi ac voiuntatis" (IV, 25, 24). .


In our author's demonology we may remark this idea:

after begetting the Son, the Father created first the angel

who later on became the devil (II, 9, col. 294). As to the an-

gels created afterwards, they, prompted by Satan, defiled

themselves by intercourse with women. From them a second

category of demons was born, who are neither angels, nor

men, but earthly demons, the cause of all our evils (II, 15).

It is easy to recognize in these notions the old Jewish Pales-

tinian fables.

The anthropology of Lactantius is more serious and accurate.

The world, he tells us, is made for man, and man for God

(VII, 4, 5). Man is made up of body and soul The latter

4oes not come ex traduce, but immediately from God (De

opificio Dei, 19, col. 73) ;nor does it exist before the body: it is

born, so to speak, with it (Div. Instit., Ill, 18, col. 406). It is

of the essence of fire (II, 10, col, 310; 13, col. 322) and immor-

tal (III, 18, col 405, 406; 19; VII, 12, 13); yet it can suffer

even after its separation from the body (VII, 20, col. 779, ff.;

21). The principle of sin does not precisely lie in the soul, but

chiefly in the bodily appetites opposed to its aspirations (Deira Dei, 19, col. 135, foil).

Lactantius touched just lightly on the question of the

Church; nevertheless his words are precise: "Sola igitur catho-

lica Ecclesia est quae verum cultum retinet. Hie est fons veri-

tatis, hoc domicilium fidei, hoc templum Dei quo si quis non

intraverit, vel a quo si quis exiverit a spe vitae ac salutis aeter-

nae alienus est ... Sciendum est illam esse veram in qua est

confessio et paenitentia, quae peccata et vulnera quibus sub-

iecta est imbecillitas carnis salubriter curat" (IV, 30, col. 542,

543). He extols highly the efficacy of Baptism: "Uno enimlavacro malitia omnis abolebitur" (III, 26, col. 432; cL

VII, 5, col. 753). Unfortunately, like Arnobius, he over-

states so much the inutility of exterior worship that he seems

not to suspect the existence, in the Christian society, of build-


ings, ornaments, pictures consecrated to the divine worship, in

a word, of the whole liturgy (VI, i, 2; II, 2-4). Again, in

Ethics, he proclaims it unlawful to wage war, to accuse evena guilty man of a capital crime, and generally to condemn aman to death: a view quite worthy of that delicate soul, whichdisliked extremely any passionate gesture and held man as asacred being: "Itaque in hoc Dei praecepto nullam prorsus

exceptionem fieri oportet, quin occidere hominem sit sempernefas, quern Deus sanctum animal esse voluit" (VI, 20, col.

708).

The eschatology of Lactantius takes up the chapters 14-26of the VIIth book of the Institutions, and is scarcely more thana mere reproduction of the Millenarian dreams and the popular

legends then in vogue, blended with a few Origenistic features.

Souls are not judged immediately after death, but only at the

end of time: "Omnes in una communique custodia detinentur

donee tcmpus adveniat quo maximus iudex meritorum faciat

examen" (VII, 2 1,col. 802, 803) . Now the world is to last 6000

years in all (VII, 14, col. 781), and more probably it has only200 years more to last (VII, 25, col. 812). Terrifying signs and

catastrophes will usher in its end (VII, 15). First a prince,

coming from the North, will afflict the nations with the

weight of a frightful tyranny (VII, 16). Antichrist will come

after (VII, 17), and the just, besieged and pressed hard on all

sides, will have no resource but to cry out to God: He will

send His Son. After the defeat of Antichrist and the ruin of

most of his followers, a first resurrection and a first judgmentwill take place, which will include neither idolaters nor those

whose ungodliness is well known, viz., the renegades, but only

those who have known and professed the religion of the true

God (VII, 21, col. 802). God will judge them by fire: all in-

deed will pass through it; however, the perfect alone will not

suffer therefrom (VII, 21, col. 802). The sinners that are

punished will go and rejoin the wicked, to suffer with, them in


the same darkness, although, it seems, only for a finite and

limited period: "Cum impiis in easdem tenebras recondentur

ad certa supplicia destinati" (VII, 21). For the elect, their

first reward will be a reign of a thousand years with Christ, a

reign which our author describes in a most realistic way (VII,

22, 24). After that lapse of time, the devil, who had been

bound, shall be released and stir up afresh against the just

all idolaters that still remain. God Himself shall exterminate

those enemies of His name and then the resurrection shall take

place for the iniusti, viz., for heathens and apostates. Theyshall rise only to be condemned "ad cruciatus sempiternos"

(VII, 26), Their flesh will modify, as it were, its nature, Jthat

it may not be destroyed by fire. That fire, unlike that of the

earth, shall burn them and rebuild them up at the same time:

"et cremabit impios et recreabit"(VII, 21, col. 802); it shall

burn them, without consuming them (VII, 21). In the mean

time, the just shall obtain their definitive reward; transformed

into angels, they shall live and reign with God for ever (VII,

26, col. 814).

2. Commodian. 1

All that we know about Commodian comes from his own

writings, and it is so meagre that so far scholars have been

unable to determine with certainty either the time or the exact

place of his literary activity. Harnack 2assigns to it the

period 260-350, and more probably the years that followed im-

mediately the persecution of Diocletian. As regards the

province where that activity was exercised, he does not vent-

1 The edition quoted is that of B. DOMBART, Commodiani carmina, Vienna,1887. Works: G. BOISSIER, Commodien, Paris, 1886. J. L, JACOBI, Kommo*dianus und die altkirchlkhe Trinittltskkre, in the Deutsche Zeitschr. f. christL

Wissenschaft, IV, 1853. L. ATZBERGEB, Geschichte dcr christL Eschaiokgie inner-

hall der vornicttnischen Zeit, Friburg in Brispjau, 1806, pp. 555-556.3 Geschichte der dtchristl. Litter., Die Chronologic, II, p, 433> #; cf, 443, 449,


ure to decide, though he feels inclined to designate the cityof Rome itself.

However this may be, and whatever Commodian was,whether a bishop or only an ascetic, the poems he has left us

were written for the people's edification and far more with a

view to strike their imagination and teach them their duties,

than to expose theological speculations. However, some

dogmatic passages have been noticed, and these are generallyrather short, except those referring to eschatology. Unfor-

tunately, they do not always reach the standard of orthodoxy.This remark applies chiefly to some verses of a more decided

patripassian and modalistic tendency. The author seems to

see in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, chiefly in the

first two, merely different names given to the same person:

Est Deus omnipotens, unus, a semetipso creatus,

Quern infra reperies magnum et humilem ipsum.Is erat in verbo positus, sibi solo notatus,

Quiipater et films dicitur et spiritus sanctus.

(Carmen apoL, v. 91, foil.)

God proclaimed Himself Son, when He manifested Himself

and in order not to be recognized:

Hie pater in filio venit, Deus unus ubique:

Nee pater est dictus nisi factus filius fuisset.

(Carmen apoL, v. 277, f.)

Idcirco non voluit se manifestare, quid esset,

Sed filium dixit se missum Msse a patre.

(Carmen apoL, v. 363, f.)

Nam populus ille primitivus illo deceptus

Quod filium dixit, cum sit Deus pristinus ipse, etc.

(Carmen apoL, v. 617, ff.)

Then Commodian is led on, in connection with the Incarnation,

to speak somewhat too vaguely of God's sufferings and death:


. . . Ligno vita latebat

Quo Dens pependit Dominus, vitae nostrae repertor.

(Carmen apol., v. 327, f.)

. . . Deum talia passum.

(Ibid., v. 357.)

. . . Deus passibilis.

(Ibid., v. 414.)

Invidia diaboli mors introivit in orbem,

Quam Deus occulte destruxit, virgine natus.

(Ibid., v. 775, i)

The 8th Instruction of the Ilnd book contains, on penanceand on the exercises with which it is accompanied, some inter-

esting details, like those given by Tertullian:

Non fiet vacuum confusio culpae proinde,

In reatu tuo sorde manifesta deflere;

Tu si vulnus habes altum medicumque require,

Et tamen in poenis poteris tua damna lenire, etc.

The most extensive part of Commodian's theology is his es-

chatology. It is scarcely of any profit to analyze it in detail,

after the exposition we have just made of that of Lactantius:

for the former reproduces the latter nearly point by point, bar-

ring the Origenistic features.1 We find the same blending of

archaic data and of folklore: the belief that Nero is not dead

and will be the first Antichrist; the second Antichrist's defeat

ascribed to the remnants of the twelfth Jewish tribe, so far

hidden beyond the Euphrates, under the leadership of the

1 Let it suffice merely to point out the chief passages: Duration of the

world (Instructions, I, 35, v. 6; II, 39, v. 8; Carm. apol, v. 791, ff.}. Nero,the Antichrist (Instritct., I, 41, v. 7, .; Carm. apol., v. 825, ff.)- Second Anti-

christ (Cam. apol., v. 887, ff.). His destruction by the twelfth tribe (Instr., II,

i; Carm. apoL, v. 941, fL). Millennium (Instr., II, 3; II, 39, v, 12, ff.; Carm.

apol., v, 979, ff.)* General resurrection; end and renewal of the world; eternal

punishment of the wicked and eternal happiness of th^ just (Instr., II, 4; cf. I,

29, v. i6,ff.; II,39 ? v.8,ff.j Carm, apol.,v. 999, if.j

cf. 741, ff,, 669, ff.)


Angel of the Most High; a realistic Millenarianism; in short,

all the visions and narratives of the Apocalypse, understood

in their most materialistic meaning, completed by all the

commentaries with which the imagination of Christians hadadorned them.

CHAPTER XV

THE DOCTRINE AND THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH ON THE EVEOF AIOANISM

THE following pages do not aim at exposing all that the

Church believed or taught at the beginning of the fourth cen-

tury; their purpose, far more modest, is merely to sum up the

results of the investigation made in this volume, or rather to

mark out, with as much precision as possible, the point of

development which the chief Christian beliefs had reached and

to which theology had gradually led them*

The authority of Scripture as source and standard of faith

was universally acknowledged, and the New Testament Canon,if not yet fullydetermined and still counting someamXeyo'/^tf,included almost all the books we now find in it. In exegesis,

two extreme methods had sprung into existence: one, the alle-

gorical method, followed on the footsteps of Philo and Origen,and was inclined to sacrifice the letter to the doctrine or to the

system; the other, the method of absolute literalism, studied in

Scripture only syllables and words or the narrowest historical

meaning of the text. It is worthy of remark that literalism

was cultivated chiefly by the schools that ended in Adop-tianism. However, between these two contrary methods, a

third one, which aimed at combining the doctrine and the letter,

and at finding out in the letter the expression and reason of the

doctrine, tended to prevail, even at Alexandria: its followers

stuck to the text, but they ascribed to it an absolute value;

they saw in it as much a collection of formulas of faith, of which

ON THE EVE OF ARIANISM 425

the Church had the understanding, as the history of the Reve-lation made by God to man.

The repeated condemnation of Sabellianism had placed be-

yond controversy the real distinction of the divine terms in the

Trinity. TertuUian had already applied to them the word of

person, and Origen, that of vTroa-rao-^, which was generally

received, although its use was to become exclusive only later

on. The divinity of the Word or of the Son was an object of

belief; yet it was rather inferred from the divinity of JesusChrist than affirmed directly. The Son was born of the Father :

He is then neither a KTurpa nor a irotypa, but of the Father's

essence, e/e rfy ova-Cas : we find in the Apologists the equivalentof this last expression, and after them, the very expressionitself. However, there were yet two difficulties with which

theologians were confronted on this subject, difficulties which

had come from Greek Philosophy. If the Word was producedfor the creation, His perfect birth was not eternal in the strict-

ness of the term, and if He is creator, He approaches creation

at least by one of His attributes: He is not the transcendent

God. Temporal generation and subordinationism : two con-

sequencesof the theorywhich looks upon theWord as the neces-

sary instrument of creation. The former is set aside by Origen

and the school of Alexandria, as well as by Pope Dionysius,

in the name of the Roman Church; the latter is to hold its

ground much longer and will be, in a great measure, the real

and precise object of discussion during the Arian struggle.

Anyhow, the word which is, one day, to bring everything to a

close, the o/ioovcno? has already appeared. The Alexandri-

ans have uttered it, and Adamantius put it down in writing.

True, the Council of Antioch has rejected it, but only in the

Sabellian meaning. On the other hand, perhaps its bearing

has not yet been fully grasped; to show all its power, Athana-

sius will have to insist on the divine unity.

As regards the person of the Holy Ghost, He still remains

426 THE ANTENICENE THEOLOGY,

nearly altogether beyond the field of theological study. In

everyday language, He is spoken of as a truly divine person.

Then, upon further consideration, some hesitations arise and

apparently continue in the school of Origen: mere scruples of

theorists, which the rest of the Church does not seem to have

felt, and which the authority of Athanasius will remove by one

word. It is through the Son that the Holy Spirit is connected

with the Father: this view is to be set forth in the formula a

Patre per Filium.

Of the questions concerning the Incarnation, only two

were expressly treated and solved: that of the divinity of

Jesus Christ against the Adoptianists, and that of the reality

of His humanity, against the Docetae. As regards the other

points, scholars Tertullian, whose formulas anticipate the

future, being left aside scholars stated only the premises of

the solutions, or when they did formulate the solutions, theydid so, outside any controversy. No difficulty was raised about

the existence of the human soul in Jesus Christ: Origen's

authority will later on do away with the sophisms of Apollina-

ris on this topic. The belief of the unity of person in JesusChrist is, we may say, general: it shows itself chiefly in the

use of the communicatio idiomatum. On the other hand, bymaintaining that the Saviour is both true God and true man,and that, in becoming man, He has not ceased being God,the Fathers discard beforehand the various forms of Mono-

physitism and lay the foundations of the decrees of Chalcedon.

The doctrine of the personal unity and of the twofold nature

in Jesus Christ is then, substantially understood and ad-

mitted, at least by enlightened Christians for among the

ordinary people many vague notions still prevail: however,the language does not always correspond to the thought, andthe expression of the latter sometimes lacks precision and firm-

ness.

Jesus Christ came to save and redeem us: with His death


they associate this work of redemption and salvation. Theblood of Jesus Christ is regarded as the price of our fransom

paid to God's justice; this is already a way of satisfying; butanother theory, still deeper and developed out of St. Paul,

emphasizes this last idea, by exhibiting Jesus Christ as the

representative of the whole humanity, expiating in its name.That is the theory of our recapitulation in the Saviour and also

of His death considered as a sacrifice.

So far, Mariology is nearly all included in the article of the

Creed: "nattis ex Maria Virgine" Angelology has not been

treated with a precision worth mentioning: many theologianscontinue to follow Jewish interpretations, particularly as to

the union of the sons of God with the daughters of men (Gen.,

62). On the other hand, the veneration paid to the Saints, and

especially to the Martyrs, is practised and firmly established.

The theory of original sin is still to be framed; but its ele-

ments are mastered, and although nobody has a distinct and

clear idea of what the hereditary fault is in itself, yet Christians

are conscious at least of a physical and moral fall, consequenton our birth from Adam the sinner. Not until St. Augustine,will a teaching somewhat complete about actual grace be

exposed: before him, the teaching of the Church consists

merely in the general affirmation of the need in which we stand

of God's help to do good, and also of the duty incumbent uponus to cooperate by our own deeds towards our salvation.

Tertullian has vigorously sketched the theory of merit and of

satisfaction, and the West has made it its own: in the East, the

progress has been slower, and the relations of God and manare determined in a way less juridical and precise.

To the Africans, together with St. Irenseus, belongs the chief

part in the development of Ecclesiology. It is a point settled

long ago that there is only one true Church in whose bosom

one can be saved; that in this Church herself, there must pre-

vail, with the unity of hearts, the unity of creed and faith;


that one of her features is to be catholic, viz., spread all over

the world. She possesses truth, and to preach it safely, en-

joys the help of the Holy Ghost. Likewise she enjoys the

power of remitting sins, all sins, and the exercise of that poweris limited only by herself. Then too at the beginning of the

fourth century, the legitimate claims of her hierarchy are firmly

established and acknowledged. As priest, teacher and lawgiver,

the bishop teaches, rules and administers and presides at the

liturgy as well. To the Bishop of Rome, texts and facts no

doubt ascribe either expressly or implicity a respect that is

unique and a special authority, whose nature and extent, how-

ever, are not clearly determined.

One enters the Church through the Christian initiation

which in its fulness comprises Baptism, Confirmation or Con-

signation, and the Eucharist. The doctrine of Baptism is

nearly completed as regards the latter's function and effects, the

subject who receives it, and the conditions to be verified on

the part of faith in the minister who confers it. On this point,

notwithstanding some divergences that will persist, the prac-tice of Rome, in the Baptismal controversy, prevails over that

of Carthage. Confirmation or Consignation, although dis-

tinct from Baptism, is normally, both in speech and in practice,

seldom separated from it. In regard to the Eucharist, while

on one hand, we find that it is generally and clearly repre-

sented, we may perhaps except Clement of Alexandria and

Origen as the body and blood of Jesus Christ, on the other

hand, nothing is explained or stated with precision as to the

way in which that real presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacra-

ment is conceived. From the remotest antiquity, the Eucha-ristic liturgy is regarded as a sacrifice destined to commemoratethe Saviour's death. A true and full sacrifice, it is offered up,on stated days, and besides on the days of the natolitia of

martyrs; it may be offered up for the departed.We have already spoken in connection with the Church,


of penance and of the forgiveness of sins: the three conditions

of that forgiveness, viz., confession, expiation and the bishop'sintervention are already pointed out by Tertullian and Origen.For the other rites, Extreme Unction and Matrimony, the

documents of the first three centuries are silent, or say verylittle. About Order, they are a little more, though not very,

explicit. Order is conferred through the laying on of the

hands of the bishop, or of the bishop and of the clergy. In the

middle of the third century, the lower Orders appear: in the

West, five are reckoned: those of subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist,

lector and porter; in the East, only that of lector is known.

During the period we have been studying, the morals of

Christian communities encountered no less dangers than

faith itself, and perhaps the chief danger did not arise from lax

theories. Laxism bears with it its own denunciation: such is

not the case with encratism and excessive rigorism, to which

those strong generations felt naturally inclined, as towards

higher forms of virtue. But the wisdom of the Church treated

these exaggerations as they deserved. The distinction be-

tween precepts and counsels was laid down; and while the

fulfilment of the former was deemed an essential condition for

salvation, the practice of the latter was left to the initiative of

more generous souls. The Christian ideal was not lowered; on

the other hand, in order to reach it, tibe obligation was imposedon nobody of leaving the common paths of life.

Moreover the passionate impulses towards extraordinary

ways, which at the beginning resulted from the expectation

of an impending judgment, and from the threats of death in

the midst of which life was spent, those impulses had consid-

erably decreased at the beginning of the fourth century when

the parousia did not appear so near, and when the edict of

Milan seemed to have closed the era of persecutions, At that

time, the calculations of Lactantius and of Commodian as to

the end of the world disturbed but few, and Millenariau


dreams had lost many believers among instructed Christians.

The hierarchical authority did not pay much attention to them.

Christians did not see clearly yet, when the final retribution

would take place after death. On the other hand, the resur-

rection of the' body was universally admitted, although Ori-

gen's school understood it in a sense against which emphatic

protests were already being raised. His theory of the apoca-

tastasis, contrary we should remark to all previous and

contemporary tradition, had apparently not yet won great

sympathy, and was to find only later on an echo in ecclesiastical

writers. So far, Christians contented themselves with the pastaffirmations of an everlasting Hell in store for sinners, and of

an endless life in God's company, as a reward for the just.

This sketch of the state of theological doctrine on the eve of

Arianism shows the Church settled on the foundations of her

belief, and after all, ready,when the occasion may demand it, to

define its great lines. The organ of these definitions was to be

the hierarchy, and it is because the prerogatives of that hie-

rarchy were acknowledged, that the Church will be able to im~

pose her decisions and to repel the attacks aimed at them.

Unfortunately, that hierarchy itself will be often divided, andrivalries of individuals as well as doctrinal divergencies will

prolong beyond all measure disputes which might have cometo an end after a few hours' earnest discussion. Nevertheless,

by being kept up for many years, these controversies will bringabout a more complete explanation of the Gospel revelation anda more noticeable progress of the Christian society in the un-

derstanding of its faith. ,

INDEXAGADAH or HAGGADAH, 31ADOPTIANISM, in Hennas, 115, 116. Adop-

tianism at Rome, its abettors, its doc-

trine, 287, ff. Adoptianism in the treatise

De montibits Sina et Sion, 365. Adop-tianism of Paul of Samosata, 400, foil.

AIXEGOBISM. Its origin among the Jewsof Alexandria, 45. Used in the Epistleof Barnabas, 139; by Clement of Alex-

andria, 246; by Origen, 261

ALOGI. Teaching of, 198ANGELOLOGY, of Palestinian Judaism, 35;

of Philo, 52-53; of Jesus Christ, 61; of

the Apocalypse, 98; of Hennas, 116;of the Apologists, 224

ANTHROPOLOGY, of Palestinian Judaism,

36; of Hellenic Judaism, 47 ; of the

Gnostics, 177, 178; of the Apologists,

224, ff.; of St. Irenaeus, 235; of Origen,

274 j of Methodius, 393; of Lactantius,

418ANTICHRIST, in Palestinian Judaism, 41;

in St. Paul, 85, 86; in the Didache, 138;in the Epistle of Barnabas, 141; in St.

Cyprian, _ 365; in Lactantius, 419; in

Commodi&n, 442APELLES. Doctrine of, 189, foil.

APOCRYPHA of the Old Testament, Pales-

tinian, 32; Judaeo-Hellenic, 46; Apocry-pha quoted by the Apostolic Fathers, 106

APOLOGISTS of the 2nd century. Their

apologetics; their theology, 206, foil.

ARTEMON. Error of, 289

BAPTISM. Teaching of Jesus Christ, 68.

74; of St. Paul, 82; of the Acts, 95; of

Hennas, 118; of the second Epistle of

St. Clement, 120; of St. Ignatius, 129;of the Didache, 136; of the Epistle of

Barnabas, 140; of the Elkesaites, 168;of the Apologists, 225; of St. Irenaeus,

238: of Clement of Alexandria, 254;of Origen, 276; of St. Hippolytus, 302;of Tertullian, 321; of St. Cyprian, 361;of Methodius, 395. Baptism of heretics,

366, ff. Teaching of Pope Stephen, 370;of St. Cyprian, 369, ff.; of Hrmifian,

371; of the Liber de rebaptismate, 373,

374. Arguments of both parties, 371,

CALLISTUS. Was he a Sabellian? 294. Hisdecree on penance, 343, foil.

CERINTEUS. System of, 157CKRISTOLOGY of Jesus Christ Himself, 62,

72; of St. Paul, 80, ff.; of the Epistle to

the Hebrews, 89; of the Synoptists, of

the Acts and of St. Peter, 92; of St.

John, 97, 101; of St. Clement, 108; of

Hennas, 115; of the second Epistle ofSt. Clement, 120; of St. Ignatius, 122,

ff.; of St. Polycarp, 133; of the Epistjeof Barnabas, 139; of the Gnostics, 178;of Marcion, 185; of the Apologists andespecially St. Justin, 221, ff.; of St.

Irenseus, 236; of MeKto, 240, 241 jof

Clement of Alexandria, 250, 251; of

Origen, 271, ff.; of St. Hippolytus, 301;of the Phttosophottmma, 304; of Tertul-

lian, 316, ff.; of Novation, 329, 330;of the Tractates Origenis, 334; of I)io-

nysius of Alexandria, 378; of Peter of

Alexandria, 392; of Methodius, 394; ofthe Adamantius, 397; of the AdaArchdai, 411; of Arnobius, 414; of

Lactantius, 417CONFESSION OF SINS, in the Didache, 136;in the Epistle of Barnabas, 140; in

Origen, 276; in TertulHan, 339; in St.

Cyprian, 363CONFIRMATION* in the Acts, 95; in St.

Hippolytus, 302; in Tertullian, 322; in

St. Cyprian, 362COTJNSELS (EVANGELICAL). Teaching of

Jesus Christ, 66, 67; of St. Paul, 85;of St. Ignatius, 131; of Tertullian, 324;of St. Cyprian, 364

CREATION. Doctrine of creation in Pales-

tinian Judaism, 35; in jPMlo, 32; in

Gnosis, 176; in Apelles, 189; in the

Apologists, 2x4, fi-J in Origen, 268; hi

the PhUosophoumena, 303

DJEMONOLOGY of Palestinian Judaism, 36;of Philo, 53; of Jesus Christ, 61, 62; of

St. John, 99; of the Apologists, 224; of

Lactantius, 418

434 INDEX

DESCENT of Jesus Christ to Limbo. Teach-

ing of St. Peter, 93; of Marcion, 186

DevELOPMENT OF DOGMA; its theory, 6,

noteDIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. Teaching of

Jesus Himself, 63-64, 72-73; of St.

Paul, 80; of St. John, 98, 101; of St.

Clement, 108; of the second Epistle of

St. Clement, 120; of St. Ignatius, 123;

of the Ebionites, 163; of the Essenc

Ebionites, 165; of the Elkesaites, 168;

of Marcion, 185; of St. Justin, 222; of

St. Irenoeus, 236; of Melito, 240DOCETISM, refuted by St. Ignatius, 124;

by St. Polycarp, 133; by Tertullian, 316.

Gnostic Docetism, 15$, 178; of Marcion,

185; of Apelles, 189; of Clement of

Alexandria, 250DOGMA. Meaning of the word, i; what

is Dogma, 1-2

EBIONITES. Teaching of, 163EBIONITES (ESSENE). Teaching of, 164,

foil.

ECCLESIOIOGY of Jesus Christ, 67, 74,' of

St. Paul, 83; of the Acts, 94; of Herraas,

117, 1 18; of the second Epistle of St.

Clement, 120; of St. Ignatius, 126, 127;of the "Martyrium" of St. Polycarp,134; of Clement of Alexandria, 254;of Origcn, 276; of St. Hippolytus, 301;of Tertullian, 320; of Novatian, 331;of St. Cyprian, 356, ff.; of Methodius,

395; of the Adamantius, 398; of Lactan-

tius, 418ELKESAITES, 167, foil.

ENCRATISM, in Hernias, 113. The Encra-

tites, 190, ff. Encratism in Hieracas,390

EPISCOPACY, in St. Paul, 84; in St Clem-ent, 109; inHermas, 117; in St. Ignatius,

127, ff.; in the Didache, 138; in St.

Cyprian, 358, foil.

ESCHATOLOGY of Palestinian Judaism, 40,

ff.; of Hellenic Judaism, 48; of Jesusf Christ, 68, If.; of St. Paul, 85, ff.; of the

/? Apostles, besides St. Paul and St. John,96; of St. John, 99, ff.; of Hurmas, n8;of the second Epistle of St. Clement,12 1 ; of St. Ignatius, 132; of the Epistleof Barnabas, 141; of the Gnostics, 180;of Marcion, 186; of the Apologists, 226,

227; of St. Iremcus, 239, 240; of Clementof Alexandria, 255; of Origen, 280, ff.;

of St. Hippolytus, 302, 303; of the

Phttosojhoum&M, 304; of Tertullian,

325, ff.; of Novatian, 331 ; of St, Cyprian,

365; of the Adamantius, 399; ofLactan-

tius, 419, ff.; of Conunodian, 422ESSENES, 163ETERNITY of punishment, in Palestinian

Judaism, 42; in Hellenic Judaism, 48;in the teaching of Jesus Christ, 70, 75;in St. Paul, 87; in St. John, ipo;

in

Hermas, 119; in the second Papistic of

St. Clement, 121; in St. Ignatius, 132;in the Epistle of Barnabas, 141; in the

Clementine Homilies, 366; in the Apol-ogists, 227; in St. 'Irenaeus, 240; in

Clement of Alexandria, 256; in Origen,

281, 282; in St. Hippolytus, 302; in the

Phflospphownena, 304; in Tertullian,

326; in St. Cyprian, 365; in Arnobius,

413; in Lactantius, 420; in Commodian,422, note.

ETHICS. Ethical teaching of Seneca, 25;of Philo, 53; of Jesus, 65, ff.; of Hennas,113, ?.; of the Gnostics, 180; of Marcion,186; of Tertullian, 323, 324; of St.

Cyprian, 364, 365; of Methodius, 395;of Lactantius, 419

EUCHARIST. Teaching of Jesus, 68; of St.

Paul, 84; of the Acts, 95; of St. Ignatius,

129, 130; of the Didachc, 136, 137; of

St. Justin, 226; of St. Irenajus, 238, 2,-jQJ

of Clement of Alexandria, 254, 255; of

Origen, 278, 279; of St. Hippolytus, 302;of Tertullian, 322; of St. Cyprian, 362;of Dionysius of Alexandria, 378; of the

Adamantius, 308EXTREME UNCTION, Teaching of St.

James, 96

FAITH. Teaching of Jesus on fuilh, 65;teaching of St. Paul, 82; of the Epistleto the Hebrews, 90; of St. James, 93;of St. Clement, 110; of St. Ignatius, 131;of Marcion, 186; of St. Irenaeus, 238;of Clement of Alexandria, 252; of

Origen, 275; of St Cyprian, 364FLESH. Teaching of Philo, 53; of St.

Paul, 78; of St. Jude, 94; of the Gnostics,176, 178

GKNERATION, Doctrine of the temporalgeneration of the Word, in the ApologiBtR,217, ff.; in St. Hippolytus, 200, aoo;in Tertullian, 31 I T 313; in Novatian, 328;in Lactantius, 416

GNOSTICISM. Judaizing Gnosticism, in theEpistle to the Colosaians, 153; 'in thePastoral Epistles, 154? in the Epistlesof vSt, Ignatius, 158. Origin of Gnosti-

cism, in II Peter and in Jude, 155; in tbc

INDEX

Epistles of St. John, 156; in the Apoca-lypse, 156. Pagan Gnosticism in the2nd century, its origin, teachings, andvarious forms, 170, ff. Danger intowhich it brought the Church, 181. TheChristian Gnostic, according to Clementof Alexandria, 252, foil.

GOD. Teaching about God and His at-

tributes in Palestinian Judaism, 33;in Hellenic Judaism, 47; in Philo, 49; in

the personal teaching of Jesus, 62; in

St. Paul, 77; in St. John, 97, 101;in St. Clement, 107; in Hennas, 114;

among the Gnostics, 175; in Marcion,185; in Apelles, 189; in the Apologists,

213; in St. Irenseus, 232; in Clement of

Alexandria, 247; in Origen, 263; in

Tertullian, 310; in the Adamantius, 397;in Arnobius, 413

GRACE. Teaching of Philo, 53; of St.

Paul, 79; of Origen, 274

HALAKHA, 31

HIERARCHY, in St. Paul, 84; in the Acts,

94, 95; in St. Clement, 109; in Hennas,117; in St. Ignatius, 127, ff.; in St.

Polycarp, 133; in the Didache, 137; in

Tertullian, 320HISTORY OP DOGMAS. What it is, 2. Inwhat it differs from the History of

Theology, 3; from Positive Theology, 4;

from Patrology and from Patristics, 4;from Historical Theology, 4. Its start-

ing-point, 5. Its sources, 7. Various

methods that may be followed, 8. Its

divisions, 9. Chief works on the Historyof Dogmas, before the i9th century, n;during the ipth century, in Germany,12; in France, 15; in Italy, 16; in Eng-land and the United States, 16

HOI/Y GHOST. Teaching of Palestinian

Judaism, 33; of Jesus Christ, 68, 74;

of St. Paul, 83; of the Synoptists, of the

Acts and of St. Peter, 92; of St. John,

99; of St. Clement, 107; of Hennas,

115; of the Montanists, 194; of the

Apologists, 220; of St. Irenaeus, 234;

ofClement of Alexandria, 249; of Origen,

366, 267; of St. Hippolytus, 300, 301;

of Tertullian, 311, 313; of Novatian, 329;

of the Tractatus Origenis, 334 ;of Diony-

sius of Alexandria, 385; of Theognostus,

386, 387; of Pierius, 3.87;of Hieracas,

389, 300; of Methodius, 393; of the

Adamantius, 397; of Lactantius, 417

IMAGES, honor paid to, 388 "7

INCARNATION. See Christology

435

contemporary of St.Paul: their origin and teaching, 150, ff.;

Judseo-Christians in the 2nd century,see Nazarenes, Ebionites, Ebionites

(Essene), Elkesaites

JUDGMENT (LAST), in Palestinian Judaism,42; in the personal teaching of Jesus,69, 75; in that of St. Paul, 87; in theEpistle to the Hebrews, 91; in St. Peter,96; in St. John, 100; in St. Clement, no;in Hennas, 119; in the second Epistle ofSt. Clement, 121; in the Epistle of Bar-

nabas, 141; among the Gnostics, 180; inSt. Hippolytus, 303

KINGDOM OE GOD, in Palestinian Judaism,39," in the personal teaching of Jesus,60; in St. Paul, 85

LAPSI. Various categories of lapsi, 346,347- How they are dealt with in Africa,

347, ff.; at Rome, 349, ff.; by the Nova-tians, 351-353; at Alexandria, 378, 392

LAW (T^3E OLD). How far it is obligatory:teaching of Palestinian Judaism, 37;of Hellenic Judaism, 45; of Jesus Christ,

66; of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 89,

94; of St. Peter and of St. James, 93,

94; of the Epistle of Barnabas, 139.Controversies on the subject, 150, ff.

Doctrine of Cerinthus, 158; of the

Ebionites, 163; of the Essene Ebionites,1 66, 167; of the Elkesaites, 168; of the

Gnostics, 176. Opposition between theLaw and the Gospel in Marcion, 184;in Apelles, 189

MAGISTERIUM or THE CHURCH. Teachingof the Apostolic Fathers, 106; of St.

Ignatius, 128; of St. Irenseus, 230, ff.;

of Tertullian, 308MANICHEISM. Its origin, 405; its founder,

405; its speculative and moral teaching,

406, ff. Its hierarchy and worship, 408,ff. Its diffusion, 409, 410. Refutations

of Manicheism, 410* 4**MARCION AND MARCIONTTISM, 183, ff.;

Marcion's disciples and successors, 188

MARRIAGE. Teaching of Jesus, 66; of St.

Paul, 85; of Hennas, 114; of St. Ignatius,

130; of the Essene Ebionites, 166, 167;

of Apelles, 189; of Tatian, 190; of the

Encratites, 191; of the Montanists, 194;

of Tertullian, 323; of St. Cyprian, 364;

of Hieracas, 390MARTYRDOM: a supplement for Baptism,

276, 346, 362

436 INDEX

MARTYRS, Their power of reconciliation,

344, 346, 350MAUY. Teaching of St. Ignatius, 123; of

Tertullian, 317MELCHISEDEKIANS. Their error, 289.

Error of Hieracas, agoMERIT, in the doctrine of Jesus, 70; in

St. Paul, 87; in St. James, 93; in StIgnatius, 132; in Tertullian, 3x9, 320;in Novatian, 331; in the Tractatus

Qrigenis, 333; in St, Cyprian, 364MESSIAS. The idea of the Messias in

Palestinian Judaism at the time of Jesus,

38, ff.; in Hellenic Judaism, 48; Jesusclaims to be the Messias, 62

METEMPSYCHOSIS, in Classical Paganism,20; in the Clementine Homilies, 165;

among the Elkesaites, 168

MILLENARIANISM, in Palestinian Judaism,

41 jin the Apocalypse, 100; in Papias,

135; in the Epistle of Barnabas, 141;in Cerinthus, 158; in Montanism, 195;in St. Justin, 227; in St, Irenaeus, 240;in St. Hippolytus, 302; in Tertullian,

325, 326; in Methodius, 396; in Lactan-

tius, 419; in Commodian, 423. TheMillenarian Doctrine and its opponents,

199, foil.

MODALISM. Its beginnings in St. Justin,

286; its form during the 3rd century in

the Pentapolis, 379, ff.; in Commodian,421

MONARCHIANISM (PATRIPASSIAN) . Its abet-

tors, its doctrine, 290, ff. Oppositionmade to it, 293, ff. Monarchianism in

Commodian, 421MONTANISM AND MONTANUS. Doctrine,

spread, adversaries of Montanism, 192,

Ifoil,

NAZARENES (Judseo-Christians), 161

NICOLAITANS. Errors of, 156; origin, 1

NOVATIAN AND NOVATIANISM, 351-353

"cyoovVtos. The word in Origen, 265.

Dionysius of Alexandria is reproachedwith not using this word, 381. TheAdamantius uses it, 397, A Council of

Antioch rejects it, 403ORDER (SACRAMENT OP), Ordination, in the

Acts, 95; in St, Cyprian, 364

PAGANISM (Classical Greco-Roman) at the

time of the coming of Jesus. Its beliefs

and ethics, 18, ff. Origin of paganpolytheism, according to the Apologists,

Cf. Monarchianism

PAUL OP SAMOSATA, his errors, his con-demnation, 400, ff.

PKNANCK. Teaching of Jesus, 65; of theKpistle to the Hebrews, QO; of Hermus,112, ff.; of the second Epistle of St.

Clement, 121; of Clement of Alexandria,255; of Origen, 270, ff.: of Tertullian,3^8, ffM 345. ff.I of Cailislus, ^.Wl ff.;

of St. Cyprian, 347, ff., 363; of Com-motlian, 422

PHILOSOPHY. Its state at the time of theadvent of Jesus, 22, ff.; its alliance withreligion during the first and second

centuries, 27. Attitude assumed towardsit by the Apologists, 307; particularlyby St, Justin, 207, ff.; by Clement of

Alexandria, 245; by Origcn, 261; byTertullian, 307; by Diouysius of Alex-

andria, 378; by St. Gregory Thauma-turgus, 388

PRAYERS K>& THE DEAD, in Hellenic Juda-ism, 48; in Tertullian, 323; in St.

Cyprian, 363; in Arnobius, 413PREDESTINATION. Teaching of Jesus

Christ in St. John, 74: of St, Paul, foPREKXISTENCB. The idea of preexistence

in Palestinian Judaism, 35; applied tothe Messias, 30. Jesus declared He ex-

isted before the world, 73 ; so also St. Paul,

80; and the Epistle of Barnabas, i.wPRESCRIPTION (Argument from), in Tertul-

lian, 309PRIKSTIIOOD of Jesus, in the Epistle to the

Hebrews, 80; in St. Clement, 108; in

St. Ignatius, 126; in St* Volycarp, IAA\in the "Martyrium" of St, Polycarp, 134

PRIMACY of St. Peter, in the SynoptisiH,

67; in Clement of Alexandria, 254; of IhuRoman Church, in St. Inatiu, 12^1 in

St. Irenceus, 231; in St. Cyprian, 359, MlPURGATORY (Doctrine of), in Origen, aitp;

in Tertullian, 325

"RECAHTULATXO" (Doctrine of), in St.

Paul, 8 r, ff.; in St. Irenajus, 236, 337;in Mclito, 241; in MelhodiuH, 394

REDEMPTION. See Soteriology

RELICS, honor paid to, 134RESURRECTION OP TIIK I)RAP, in MentinianJudaism, 42; in Hellenic Judaism, 48,Teaching of JCSUH, ftg, 75; of St. Paul,

86; of the Epistle to the Hebrew*, oiof St. John, too; of St. Clement, no;of the neconcl Epistle of St. Clemtmt,121; of the "Marfyrium" of St Poly-carp, 134; of the Itidachft x.$; of the

Gnostics, 180; of Apcll^ xg; of the

INDEX 437

Apologists, 226; of St. Irenaeus, 240;of Clement of Alexandria, 255; of

Origen, 281; of Tertullian, 325; of theTractatus Qrigenis, 335; of Hieracas,

390; of Peter of Alexandria, 392; of

Methodius, 3Q6; of the Adamantius, 399;of Lactantius, 419, 420; of Commocfian,432, note

SABELLIANISM, SABELLIUS. See Modalism,Monarchianism

SACRAMKNTB, in Tertullian, 321SAINTS, honor paid to the, 134SATISFACTION, in Tertullian, 319, 339; in

St. Cyprian, 365SCRIPTURE. Authority ascribed to the

various hooks of Holy Writ, by the

Apostolic Fathers, 105, 106; by the

Apologists, 213. Books of Holy Writ

acknowledged by Marcion, 187. Canonof Scripture, 220. Three meanings of

Scripture, according to Origen, 260SIN. Teaching of Palestinian Judaism,

36; of Jesus, 65; of St. Paul, 78; of St.

John, 102; of Origen, 271; of Metho-dius, 304, Sins ad mortem and non admortem, to 2, 341, 344, 353

SIN (ORIGINAL), in Palestinian Judaism,37 ; teaching of St. Paul, 82

; of Thcophi-ius of Anlioch, 225; of St. Ircmcus, 235;

of Clement of Alexandria, 250; of Origen

270, 271; of Tertullian, 315; of the

Tractatus Origcnist 332; of St. Cyprian304.

SONSIUP (DrviNK) of Jesus, in His ownteaching, (M, ft,

%72; in St. Paul, 80; in

St. John, ici ; in St. Ignatius, 123; in

the Kpistle of Barnabas, 140SoTKRiotOGY of Jesus, 64, 73; of St. Paul

8r, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 90of St. Peter, ga; of St. John, 98, 101

of St. Clement, 108; of Hennas, 116

of St. Ignatius, 126; of the Epistle o

BarnabuB, 140; of the Gnostics, 179of Marvion, iH6; of St. Justin, 223of St. Irctueus, a

4<7, 2.^; of Clement o

Alexandria, 251; of Origen, 273, ff.; o

St. HippolytuH, ,*oi; of Tertullian, 318of the Traftoltts Orijtrnis, 334. 335 ;

St. Cyprian, ,156;of Methodius, 305

of the. Adamant tus, ;*0K

Sow,. Its origin, according to Philo, 52

53. Teaching of AjxrUeH, 180; of Clemwit of Alexandria, 240; of Origen, 269of Tertullian, ,414, 315; of Novatian

331} of ArnobiuH, 413; of Lactantiu

418. Its immortality, according to

Greco-Roman Paganism, 20; accordingto Hellenic Judaism, 47; according tothe Apologists, 225; according to Arno-bius, 413; -according to Lactantius, 418TOICISM. Metaphysics of, 23; ethics of,

24, and foil.

UBORDINATIONISM, in the Apologists, 220;in St. Irenaeus, 234; in Clement of

Alexandria, 248; in Origen, 265; in St.

Hippolytus, 300; in Tertullian, 313; in

Theognostus, 386, 387; in Methodius,393; in Lactantius, 416YMBOL OP PATCH, in the East, 142; in the

West, 143; in Tertullian, 309

'ATIAN. Teaching of, 190TRINITY." Trinitarian doctrine in Pales-

tinian Judaism, 33; in the teaching of

Jesus, 68; of St. Paul, 83; of the Synop-tists, 92; of St. Clement, 107; of Her-mas, 115, ff.; of St. Ignatius, 122.

Teaching of the "Martyrium" of St.'

Polycarp, 134; of the Gnostics, 175; of

the Apologists, 215, 221; of St. Irenseus,

233; of Clement of Alexandria, 247; of

Origen, 263; of the Phttosophoumena,303; of

Tertujlian, 310, ff.; of Novatian,327, fE.; of Dionysius of Rome, 382, 383;of Dionysius of Alexandria, 381-386;of St. Gregory Thaumatuigus, 389;of Lactantius, 416, 417; of Commo-dian, 421

WORD. Doctrine of the Word in Palestinian

Judaism, 33; in Hellenic Judaism, 47;in Philo, 50, ff.; in St. John, 101; in

St. Ignatius, 122; in the Apologists, 214,

ff.; in St. Irenseus, 233, ff.; in Clementof Alexandria, 247; in, Origen, 263, ff.;

in St. Hippolytus, 299, 300; in thePA#o-

sophownena, 303; in Tertullian, 311,

ff.; in Novatian, 328; in the Tractatus

Origenis, 333; in Dionysius of Rome,383, ff.; in Dionysius of Alexandria,

381, 382, 383; in Hieracas, 390; HI

Methodius, 393, 394; in the Adaman-

tius, 397; in Lactantius, 416WORKS (GOOD). Their necessity for sal-

vation. Teaching of Jesus, 65, 66: of

St. Paul, 82; of St. James, 93; of St.

Clement, no; of Hermas, H3i "4Jof the second Epistle of St Clement,

121; of vSt. Polycarp, 133; of tiie Epistle

of Barnabas, HI; of Marcionitism, 186,

189; of Origen, 275; of Hieracas, 391

Untitled - Christ's Faithful People

Documents

Transcript of Untitled - Christ's Faithful People